6 ms·

I've noticed that the latest trend on social networks is to have ultra-sped up mini-videos, I think because it's popular on Instagram or TikTok (or both?). It's

by simias 6y ago

I've noticed that the latest trend on social networks is to have ultra-sped up mini-videos, I think because it's popular on Instagram or TikTok (or both?). It's as if our entire civilization had suddenly caught ADHD. Frankly maybe I'm old school but I found the Youtube version a lot more palatable, I could understand what was going on much butter, take a few seconds to understand the how the contraptions worked. When I watch one of these shortened ultra-edited versions I feel like I'm holding by breath.

laurent92 6y ago
The case study of the ADHD trend in general population is Mission Impossible IV. It is filmed by shoulder cameras and the mounter is just playing piano on the console: there isn’t a shot longer than 4s in the entire movie, and the average of changing camera angle is 0,7s. All you can get is an impression of the main character on any given image, but you can’t rest and you can’t contemplate. This is especially comical in romantic scenes because it makes you wonder how they came up with this idea of fast-paced romantic dialogues. Compare that to pre-2000 movies, even The Gremlins is ultra-slow and makes you wonder whether we were actually slow-minded pre-2000.
- doc_gunthrop 6y ago
  Alfred Hitchcock films would be agony to that crowd. The opening shot for his film "Rope" clocks in at about 9 and a half minutes. All in a single shot!
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - SippinLean 6y ago
    Opening shot? That movie only had one shot ;)
    - klodolph 6y ago
      Several shots, planned out carefully so it could be edited to look like one shot. Russian Ark (2002) (Russian: Русский ковчег) is a single 96-minute steadicam shot, and it has over 2,000 actors and three orchestras in it. It was recorded directly to a hard drive carried behind the camera operator, which could hold 100 minutes.
      - SippinLean 6y ago
        thus the winking emoji. thank you for reminding me that I need to watch Russian Ark again though!
        IndySun 6y ago
        And then watch the 'making of'. Also fascinating.
  - IndySun 6y ago
    It was shot in segments but edited to look like one shot. Back then, there were no such studio cameras to continuously record to film reels over a certain length.
    - doc_gunthrop 6y ago
      The film camera magazine had a capacity of up to 10 minutes, so Hitchcock could film the scene all in one shot.
- JxLS-cpgbe0 6y ago
  > there isn’t a shot longer than 4s in the entire movie is this hyperbole? Genuinely asking.
  - pvg 6y ago
    - The pictures they make these days are all MTV. Cut, cut, cut, cut. The opening shot of Welles's Touch of Evil was six and a half minutes long. - Six and a half minutes? - Three or four, anyway
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - graton 6y ago
    Seems like hyperbole. I just looked at Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol (aka Mission Impossible IV). In the first two minutes there were multiple shots of over 10 seconds. And at the 0:14:44 mark there is a 24 second shot.
  - laurent92 6y ago
    Parent here. I admit this wasn’t from a scientific method, it is just that when I saw it in the theater, I suddenly understood why it was annoying, and started counting from there. Maybe there were longer shots earlier in the movie (although I’ve tried watching it recently and the first scenes were cut this way), maybe the average isn’t 0.7 which was a ballpark figure based on my counting. Sorry for being probably wrong on the exactness of the figures, I thought the background idea was important, that pre-2000 movies were slower, and there has been an acceleration to the point of ridicule, and it is probable that directors dialled down from the extremely-fast-paced style because it didn’t find its audience. Yes, more recent movies didn’t go faster than that one, it was really a style that had its apogee in that movie.
- ssully 6y ago
  I honestly don't think it makes a good case study to be honest. Assuming what you say is true, I would still chalk up the shots/cuts to the artistic direction of the director/crew over anything to do with ADHD. I think this falls apart even more when you compare Ghost Protocol to the most recent MI film, Fallout, which is the highest rated and grossing MI movie in the series. Just from an artistic perspective, it's shot very differently than Ghost Protocol.
- woobar 6y ago
  I think this is an exaggeration. Short/Long takes are an artistic decision. We have recent movies that are a few long takes (sometime pretending to be a single take) 1917, Birdman, Russian Ark (true single take) all shot in recent years. Same with TV: True Detective has a famous long take scene, Mr. Robot, BCS.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    A little cheer for Russian Ark. I liked it. Done as said, in one take. Spot the bit well into the film where the guy nearly drops the book, you can feel the oncoming-but-narrowly-averted pain.
- graton 6y ago
  > The case study of the ADHD trend in general population is Mission Impossible IV. It is filmed by shoulder cameras and the mounter is just playing piano on the console: there isn’t a shot longer than 4s in the entire movie, and the average of changing camera angle is 0,7s. Seems like hyperbole. I just looked at Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol (aka Mission Impossible IV). In the first two minutes there were multiple shots of over 10 seconds. And at the 0:14:44 mark there is a 24 second shot.
hrktb 6y ago
Watched both, and it was clearer to me to go through the sped up version three times than watching the whole 3 min on youtube. Most of us are used to faster paced information delivery, and we still go back to what we missed or want to check more in detail. That’s what we deal with day in day out, and I don’t think we end up with an understanding that is shallower than when stopping at each frame for 5 seconds. I find it sad it becomes some “kids these days” rant material when it’s just a matter of preferred watching pace.
amatecha 6y ago
Yeah, I cannot stand the trend of sped-up videos. Especially those "life hack" ones where people fold their laundry super fast or that kind of thing. I want to take the time to ingest what I'm seeing. If it's only enjoyable/watchable at 4x speed, maybe it's not worth paying attention to to begin with? Of course time-lapses and stuff like that are intentionally sped up, but for something like an instructional video, it's going to be challenging to take real meaning from it. In general it seems that people want to see some "neat" thing, click Like, and move onto the next interesting thing. For me, I don't relate. I like to dive into my interests and invest some real time into them. Otherwise my perception of the world and the things around me is super shallow. In fact, when I want information, I usually want text and images, not video/audio. Further, I don't find it very rewarding to watch those sort of "clickbait" clips. I understand it can be satisfying in the short term, but I find almost zero need for this type of entertainment. I sense the primal nature of it and find it unappealing. I also feel that those primal "entertainment" desires are being exploited for clicks/likes/advertising, and I prefer to be compensated by greater value than relatively-shallow time-wasting if I am being exploited :)

by simias 6y ago

laurent92 6y ago

The case study of the ADHD trend in general population is Mission Impossible IV. It is filmed by shoulder cameras and the mounter is just playing piano on the console: there isn’t a shot longer than 4s in the entire movie, and the average of changing camera angle is 0,7s. All you can get is an impression of the main character on any given image, but you can’t rest and you can’t contemplate. This is especially comical in romantic scenes because it makes you wonder how they came up with this idea of fast-paced romantic dialogues. Compare that to pre-2000 movies, even The Gremlins is ultra-slow and makes you wonder whether we were actually slow-minded pre-2000.

doc_gunthrop 6y ago
Alfred Hitchcock films would be agony to that crowd. The opening shot for his film "Rope" clocks in at about 9 and a half minutes. All in a single shot!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- SippinLean 6y ago
  Opening shot? That movie only had one shot ;)
  - klodolph 6y ago
    Several shots, planned out carefully so it could be edited to look like one shot. Russian Ark (2002) (Russian: Русский ковчег) is a single 96-minute steadicam shot, and it has over 2,000 actors and three orchestras in it. It was recorded directly to a hard drive carried behind the camera operator, which could hold 100 minutes.
    - SippinLean 6y ago
      thus the winking emoji. thank you for reminding me that I need to watch Russian Ark again though!
      - IndySun 6y ago
        And then watch the 'making of'. Also fascinating.
- IndySun 6y ago
  It was shot in segments but edited to look like one shot. Back then, there were no such studio cameras to continuously record to film reels over a certain length.
  - doc_gunthrop 6y ago
    The film camera magazine had a capacity of up to 10 minutes, so Hitchcock could film the scene all in one shot.
JxLS-cpgbe0 6y ago
> there isn’t a shot longer than 4s in the entire movie is this hyperbole? Genuinely asking.
- pvg 6y ago
  - The pictures they make these days are all MTV. Cut, cut, cut, cut. The opening shot of Welles's Touch of Evil was six and a half minutes long. - Six and a half minutes? - Three or four, anyway
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- graton 6y ago
  Seems like hyperbole. I just looked at Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol (aka Mission Impossible IV). In the first two minutes there were multiple shots of over 10 seconds. And at the 0:14:44 mark there is a 24 second shot.
- laurent92 6y ago
  Parent here. I admit this wasn’t from a scientific method, it is just that when I saw it in the theater, I suddenly understood why it was annoying, and started counting from there. Maybe there were longer shots earlier in the movie (although I’ve tried watching it recently and the first scenes were cut this way), maybe the average isn’t 0.7 which was a ballpark figure based on my counting. Sorry for being probably wrong on the exactness of the figures, I thought the background idea was important, that pre-2000 movies were slower, and there has been an acceleration to the point of ridicule, and it is probable that directors dialled down from the extremely-fast-paced style because it didn’t find its audience. Yes, more recent movies didn’t go faster than that one, it was really a style that had its apogee in that movie.
ssully 6y ago
I honestly don't think it makes a good case study to be honest. Assuming what you say is true, I would still chalk up the shots/cuts to the artistic direction of the director/crew over anything to do with ADHD. I think this falls apart even more when you compare Ghost Protocol to the most recent MI film, Fallout, which is the highest rated and grossing MI movie in the series. Just from an artistic perspective, it's shot very differently than Ghost Protocol.
woobar 6y ago
I think this is an exaggeration. Short/Long takes are an artistic decision. We have recent movies that are a few long takes (sometime pretending to be a single take) 1917, Birdman, Russian Ark (true single take) all shot in recent years. Same with TV: True Detective has a famous long take scene, Mr. Robot, BCS.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  A little cheer for Russian Ark. I liked it. Done as said, in one take. Spot the bit well into the film where the guy nearly drops the book, you can feel the oncoming-but-narrowly-averted pain.
graton 6y ago
> The case study of the ADHD trend in general population is Mission Impossible IV. It is filmed by shoulder cameras and the mounter is just playing piano on the console: there isn’t a shot longer than 4s in the entire movie, and the average of changing camera angle is 0,7s. Seems like hyperbole. I just looked at Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol (aka Mission Impossible IV). In the first two minutes there were multiple shots of over 10 seconds. And at the 0:14:44 mark there is a 24 second shot.

hrktb 6y ago

Watched both, and it was clearer to me to go through the sped up version three times than watching the whole 3 min on youtube. Most of us are used to faster paced information delivery, and we still go back to what we missed or want to check more in detail. That’s what we deal with day in day out, and I don’t think we end up with an understanding that is shallower than when stopping at each frame for 5 seconds. I find it sad it becomes some “kids these days” rant material when it’s just a matter of preferred watching pace.

amatecha 6y ago

Yeah, I cannot stand the trend of sped-up videos. Especially those "life hack" ones where people fold their laundry super fast or that kind of thing. I want to take the time to ingest what I'm seeing. If it's only enjoyable/watchable at 4x speed, maybe it's not worth paying attention to to begin with? Of course time-lapses and stuff like that are intentionally sped up, but for something like an instructional video, it's going to be challenging to take real meaning from it. In general it seems that people want to see some "neat" thing, click Like, and move onto the next interesting thing. For me, I don't relate. I like to dive into my interests and invest some real time into them. Otherwise my perception of the world and the things around me is super shallow. In fact, when I want information, I usually want text and images, not video/audio. Further, I don't find it very rewarding to watch those sort of "clickbait" clips. I understand it can be satisfying in the short term, but I find almost zero need for this type of entertainment. I sense the primal nature of it and find it unappealing. I also feel that those primal "entertainment" desires are being exploited for clicks/likes/advertising, and I prefer to be compensated by greater value than relatively-shallow time-wasting if I am being exploited :)