336
Film Students Are Having Trouble Sitting Through Movies, Professors Say
(www.hollywoodreporter.com)
this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2026
336 points (97.2% liked)
Not The Onion
19955 readers
1175 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ever watch 2001: A Space Odyssey? I love it, but man it's slow.
Also it's a movie that asks more questions than it answers, which annoys a lot of people.
I saw Terminator 3 in the theater. The first 20-30:minutes, with that crazy chase, I was like, is this going to be the whole film? Eventually it does show down and take a breath, but I still remember my initial reaction to that.
a lot of people are idiots if they are looking for 'answers' in entertainment products.
i don't expect my car to tell me the purpose of life. i expect it to get me places.
and the purpose of film class is to teach you how films work as a medium and learn to analyze them as such. not to entertain you.
Yeah psshtt they can go to their mom to cry about "satisfying narratives" and "stories which make sense".
A car is a mode of transport. That's why it doesn't tell you shit, but you can use it yo travel. However movies aren't modes of transportation, and instead are media for stories.
Is this all honestly news to you? Have you hit your head? Want me to call an ambulance?
sorry, do you think all stories must be a certain way? or subscribe to a certain structure?
i mean, there are lots of different types of cars. a monster truck isn't for travel, not is drag strip racer.
No, I'm just not a twat who threatens people with violence with they have a different perspective. Do you want to go beat the crap out of Stanley Kubrick because he didn't make the movie you wanted him to make? Does it offend you that thinks you don't like or enjoy, exist?
"A certain way" in much the same sense all cars need four+ wheels, a steering wheel and an accelerator and some breaks. If I get into the tiny details, having lights is also rather good.
What you were saying is that it's unreasonable to expect stories to be... well, stories. You know, with a beginning, middle and end?
Unless you're trying to tell me that two-wheeled chain driven transport with no steering wheel or motor is also "a car", I think I've made my point.
i'm not aware of any definition of story that requires it have those elements, or they be presented in that order.
you have a very narrow definition of what a story is, and seem to think anything outside of that structure is bad or wrong.
i mean you can define a car however you want. doesn't mean other people have to drive such cars or agree with you. definitions change. is a semi truck a car? it has all those qualities. but i wouldn't call it a car and i'd considerate to have zero overlap with operating a car, hence why operating trucks often requires a CBD and not a regular drivers license.
I'm guessing you never took a college level film class? I took several. A lot of the movies we watched, and I've seen seen outside of class, don't subscribe to your definition of story at all. I still very much enjoyed them and thought some of them were far superior to marvel movies.
And that's sort of the issue here.
I too could argue that you have a way too narrow definition of a car and since my feet also take me places, they're also a car. But it'd be fucking moronic to do that, just like your argument is utterly moronic.
Cheerio
so your argument is you are right because you are you and all that matters is your opinion on things?
and auto-motive engineers, are wrong if they don't agree with your layman definition of a car?
Must be nice to be smarter than professionals who make movies and cars. Wish I as much of a genius as you clearly are.
Your argument is a thing you're not aware of can't exist.
Can't really talk to such a fundamentally moronic person, really. If you don't realise that there are things which you don't understand but others do, then there's just no helping you. Maybe try a few milligrams of LSD.
It's not actually, because the large majority of people are like you, who just won't accept the fact they're ignorant of something.
So which professional storytellers have said that there are no conventions in stories? Which movie doesn't have a start middle and end? Documentaries? Even they do. Because it's ingrained in humanity for hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of years.
Who were the professionals whom I am smarter than?
Not Dan Harmon, that's for sure. https://youtu.be/RG4WcRAgm7Y
No, it's not. My argument is that just because you don't like 2001 doesn't mean it's stupid and bad. I think it's a great film. So do most people educated in film who have a broader understanding of the medium.
You are conflating general audience exceptions of a conventional hollywood narrative as some form of universal merit. As if there aren't audiences outside of that mold. As if art film doesn't or shouldn't exist.
Harmon writes for general audiences. I'm well aware of him and his work. His biggest fans are people who think they are smarter than everyone else and that Rick and Morty and Community are genius level works of art... because they are very referential and self-referential, but they are ultimately neat and tidy and comforting and built on familiar tropes. They are not designed to be challenging or interested and don't demand much of the viewer. Nothing about his story telling is complex or open ended. And that's fine, but it's not the only kind story structure or film/show that exists.
Dude, you just hate open ended stories. Just say that. I have watched Dan Harmon stuff and it's funny, and enjoyable, but I also find it trite and nihilistic. It's superficially enjoyable, but 2001 is a lot more enjoyable on deeper levels and a work of art. Dan Harmon doesn't make art, he makes entertainment.
You're even confusing me with someone else.
Tell me, which definitions of a story are you aware of, then?
Because I can't find a single one that even slightly supports your naive garbage. A story is narration. (from latin narrare, to tell) and a narrative has a plot and a plot has a beginning, a middle and an end.
I'm not conflating shit. You're pretending you can tell a narrative without touching any conventions (which go back tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years).
Just because you don't get the art film doesn't mean it didn't have a beginning, a middle and an end. If it doesn't then it's just okay to only watch a portion of it? And since there's no end or start, you can just watch a random 10 min from anywhere and backwards or forwards.... riiight? Because that's what you're saying, dimwit.
Just like with the structure of a narrative, you're completely wrong. I have never said I don't like 2001. But will you accept that? Ofc you won't.
a story is a narrative construct. it doesn't need any particular structure. I mean, yeah in writing 101 class they tell you it needs all sorts of things, but writing 101 is a vast oversimplification of the diversity of stories and narratives that are possible and exist. I read plenty of books and watch films that have no clear linear narrative, and some of which the point of the movie/film is that such narratives themselves are suspect, oftentimes in the effort to reflect or explore the non-linearity of human consciousness. You seem to think only the writing 101 definition is the only legitimate way to think of things and claiming everything that isn't neat and tidy.
Just because my writing teacher demands a particular story structure, doesn't mean that's the only type of structure that is valid. It's juts the one that's valid for getting a good grade in her class. When you start reading stuff at more advanced levels the 'rules' you are taught typically no longer apply or are optional. That's true of a lot of things. And some of my teachers think I'm a major asshole for talking about things that don't fit into the neat little writing 101 formula.
Yeah it's totally OK to only watch a portion of it. When I wrote papers for film class I typically focused on one scene or segment and watched in dozens of times and wrote specifically about that. That's what film class is. You watch the movie as a whole, then break it down into components and learn how they function, and work together. You also figure out what may be problematic and identify the influences, target audience, and lots of other things.
My mom has dementia. Linearity no longer exists for her. Her memories are all jumbled and she conflates the past with the present and has no sense of time or identity anymore. I read a book called Wittgenstein's Mistress that is about a person with dementia. The book has no story in the conventional sense. It is a first person story about someone who keeps reliving their memories and can't make new ones and the repeated memories keep changing and distorting. It was incredibly powerful because it helped me understand and empathize with what is going on inside my mother's brain. I'm sure for you such a novel would be a confusing piece of shit that made zero sense. It has no plot, no storyline, no conclusions, and arguable, no characters. Yet it still tells a clear and distinct story about a person.
Ofc it does. You still haven't given a single example of these things you pretend can be true. (Which they aren't.)
Stories do have a beginning middle and end. That's what a narrative structure means. No matter how much you break fourth walls or film a movie like Memento, it still has a start an end and a beginning, as does 2001. (Which I never said I disliked or liked, just to reiterate as you got me confused with someone else there.)
"no clean linear narrative" doesn't mean it's not a narrative with a start and an end
Just like no-one would describe you as (I'm just assuming gender now but whatever doesn't make the point any different) a handsome and successful man, but I still think you can be described as a man (or a woman).
So your "no clear linear" is just shifting goalposts.
And why would it? But see, even you point out the alternative is other story STRUCTURES because stories have structures. Mainly a beginning and an end, when you generalise enough. But narrative stories do have structure.
You've still not given a simple example or a narrative story without a beginning a middle and an end, have you?
Oh little babby is trying to be condescending while talking utter shite out of his arse, how adorable.
I point to literally all stories. Just because some narratives are more convoluted than others doesn't mean they don't begin and end, dumbo.
Oh you do give an example... of what you point out isn't a story as such. Because it's not a narrative. Did I ever say all written art is stories? I don't think I did. But I get it.. You're not here to argue or with an open mind. You just said something dumb and now refuse to accept you did.
I don't think you understood what I meant. Most movies wrap up all the plotlines at the end. 2001 just leaves the viewer wondering what happens next. You see the star child, then the movie just ends. There's also no explanation about the people that built the monoliths and transformed Bowman.
That's the point of the movie. It's not suppose to answer questions.
You simple want it to be a totally different movie than it is. You want it to be a nice convenient package that doesn't make you question anything or think.
Other people actually enjoy thinking about things. They don't want answers and they don't care about plotlines.
I think you have me confused with someone else.
that's you.
God, why are you arguing this?
This is also what I said before:
Learn to fucking read and comprehend. I'm out of this conversation and blocking you.
It's not an argument. It's literally the point of the movie dude.