Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

Weird... so many tweets, and not a single explanation of why it'll ruin the experience. All I get is that they're upset, and sometimes outright disdainful of their audience.

[ChairmanPoo]

I personally think it wouldn't be enjoyable for me. What I don't get is this compulsion in some people of dictating how you should enjoy your entertainment. There was this quote in a movie "It's my wine, I bought it. I can pee in it if I want to". And I think it very much applies. If someone wants to watch stuff at 2x who are they to say that they should not?

Heck, I said it wouldn't be enjoyable for me, but TBH there are some boring episodes in series which I cram through because they contain important plot points but are fairly inane. I could probably watch those at 2x to get a general idea.

[Naturegirl1999]

I personally think it wouldn't be enjoyable for me. What I don't get is this compulsion in some people of dictating how you should enjoy your entertainment. There was this quote in a movie "It's my wine, I bought it. I can pee in it if I want to". And I think it very much applies. If someone wants to watch stuff at 2x who are they to say that they should not?

Heck, I said it wouldn't be enjoyable for me, but TBH there are some boring episodes in series which I cram through because they contain important plot points but are fairly inane. I could probably watch those at 2x to get a general idea.

Agreed, if people wish to Change the speed, they shouldn’t be told not to

[scriver]

Weird... so many tweets, and not a single explanation of why it'll ruin the experience. All I get is that they're upset, and sometimes outright disdainful of their audience.

Pacing is 98% of storytelling

I personally think it wouldn't be enjoyable for me. What I don't get is this compulsion in some people of dictating how you should enjoy your entertainment. There was this quote in a movie "It's my wine, I bought it. I can pee in it if I want to". And I think it very much applies. If someone wants to watch stuff at 2x who are they to say that they should not?

Heck, I said it wouldn't be enjoyable for me, but TBH there are some boring episodes in series which I cram through because they contain important plot points but are fairly inane. I could probably watch those at 2x to get a general idea.

It's like

You put effort into a thing

Lots of time and money

And lots of effort

And you arrange it in a certain way to be the very best you can make it

And then you show it to people

And they go "yeah, I used it as toilet paper instead, it was great"

And that makes you upset

And I don't think it's strange that you are upset about that

And I really can't see how anyone would think being upset about that would be strange

[Naturegirl1999]

Weird... so many tweets, and not a single explanation of why it'll ruin the experience. All I get is that they're upset, and sometimes outright disdainful of their audience.

Pacing is 98% of storytelling

I personally think it wouldn't be enjoyable for me. What I don't get is this compulsion in some people of dictating how you should enjoy your entertainment. There was this quote in a movie "It's my wine, I bought it. I can pee in it if I want to". And I think it very much applies. If someone wants to watch stuff at 2x who are they to say that they should not?

Heck, I said it wouldn't be enjoyable for me, but TBH there are some boring episodes in series which I cram through because they contain important plot points but are fairly inane. I could probably watch those at 2x to get a general idea.

It's like

You put effort into a thing

Lots of time and money

And lots of effort

And you arrange it in a certain way to be the very best you can make it

And then you show it to people

And they go "yeah, I used it as toilet paper instead, it was great"

And that makes you upset

And I don't think it's strange that you are upset about that

And I really can't see how anyone would think being upset about that would be strange

I don’t think changing the speed of something is comparable to using a thing as toilet peper

[dragdeler]

-

[pisskop]

inadequate sounds systems

ugggghhh, why would anyone with any amount of disposible income not buy a decent pair of speakers or phones?  the cheap shit makes me cringe, even when i dont like the particular music.

[Iduno]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7626657/Hollywood-filmmakers-actors-join-Judd-Apatow-blasting-Netflix-chipmunk-mode-speeds.html
Why is everyone so upset at the idea of people watching stuff at 1.5 speed?
Also, while I'm at it, why is it only 1.25 and 1.5 speed? Is 2.0 speed somehow harder to implement than 1.25 and 1.5 speed?

It's the Daily Mail. It's a right-wing paper that thrives on people being upset.

[thew4yyy]

I've played the Eternal Darkness on Apknite and found that several WTF things happen in the game when your sanity runs out. Your head might fall off, but you keep playing, then you scream, and it goes back. But it's not real. The Gamecube appears to restart. The TV seems to mute itself or change the volume. Paintings turn, walls bleed, scream.

[dragdeler]

-

[Reelya]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7626657/Hollywood-filmmakers-actors-join-Judd-Apatow-blasting-Netflix-chipmunk-mode-speeds.html
Why is everyone so upset at the idea of people watching stuff at 1.5 speed?
Also, while I'm at it, why is it only 1.25 and 1.5 speed? Is 2.0 speed somehow harder to implement than 1.25 and 1.5 speed?

It's the Daily Mail. It's a right-wing paper that thrives on people being upset.

The article is on a ton of not-daily-mail new sites. It's just unfortunate that the person linking it chose that one.

If you want a reason that creators are upset and Netflix doesn't care then following the money trail is probably the best bet. Netflix pays a set monthly licensing fee, they don't pay the creators "per view". So if Netflix can cram more views in then they get more people watching more movies/shows in less time and they don't have to license particular things for so long: if the same number of subscribers get through 1.5 times as many shows, Netflix can only license each particular show for 2/3rds of the duration they do now, and still get the same number of views in: if people are high-speed binging something then the peak number of viewers will both grow quicker then drop off faster. All of which suits Netflix fine, since they pay a set fee for the number of months that something is on their books.

So yeah, the "artistic vision" stuff from the "40 year old virgin" director is codswallop. This is about money.

[McTraveller]

It's probably about both.

Consider for example an artist who makes a painting or sculpture. This is the "artistic intent" of the thing; you could probably maybe display it under colored lighting and get the same kind of complaints that the lighting doesn't show the intended thing.

Consider a song - the tempo of a song can have significant effect on the emotional impact / mood.

I find the discussion more interesting from a deeper perspective: consumers aren't wanting to watch what is presented to them like in an audience - they want to consume in the way they seem fit.  It's kind of an "I'm the consumer, I get to choose, because it's all about what gives me the most personal satisfaction" philosophy coming into conflict with the "no, sorry, this is The World, and you have to take it as it is - the world doesn't bend to you, you have to accept the world, maybe you might find something new if you don't always get Your Way" philosophy.  Now of course those are the extremes - there is a spectrum along that philosophical line.

When it comes to movies or whatever - are you really just trying to get the story as fast as possible, or are you interested in wanting to experience the movie?  I think this is what the more artistic (rather than money) focused directors, etc. are talking about.  They are voicing a concern that, to me, sounds like people aren't really wanting to experience the movies, but just get the information sound bite of the plot.

It's also interesting because there really is no "right" position here - both positions have merit.  What concerns me most is that people take it as a personal affront that the movie makers have said "hey you know, this is not how we intended this movie to be presented" and somehow the desire of the viewer to watch however they want is somehow more virtuous than the desire of the movie maker to say "no".

Of course, that is all neglecting the money side - but I would hazard that the money side is from the studios, not the directors / artists.  There are an increasing number of vocal artists at least who have declined roles in very lucrative movie franchises because they didn't believe in the mass-consumer-appeal franchise.

[scriver]

the proportions are respected when it comes to pacing

That's not how pacing works. A pause of 1/10 seconds is not the same as one of 10/100 seconds just because "the proportions are the same".

And to be clear. I'm not personally against people watching stuff at higher speed, or Netflix offering it -- people has been doing that for years with all kinds of media including tv and film already. Like been said it's exactly like the expensive whisky and the cotton wad to me -- do as you wish with what you paid for. What I don't like is this feigned obliviousness as to why anyone and especially the creators would object to people "enjoying" it in a way that ruins the experience they created.

We had exactly this kind of debate in Sweden some 15-20 years back when a bunch of directors tried to rally against tv channels putting commercial breaks in their movies (it didn't succeed in setting a standard, though the main objector guy steadfastly refused to let his movies be shown with commercial breaks in them to this day). Lots of pro-corp grovellers pretending not to get what they were objecting to back then too.

[dragdeler]

-

[Rolan7]

It's also interesting because there really is no "right" position here - both positions have merit.  What concerns me most is that people take it as a personal affront that the movie makers have said "hey you know, this is not how we intended this movie to be presented" and somehow the desire of the viewer to watch however they want is somehow more virtuous than the desire of the movie maker to say "no".

Reasonable people can disagree about whether a work is best appreciated without speedup, sure.  The creators are taking a much more extreme position, outright denying consumer choice.  There's absolutely a right position there - consumers should be allowed, even facilated, to experience these works however they choose to.  As long as they aren't somehow harming others, there's no valid argument for this course of action.  It's nobody's job or right to force them to have the correct experience.

I don't really plan to use this feature, but it's most concerning to me that we're even considering these artists' demands as if they have any right to make them.  In my opinion it's obvious that they don't, and I've yet to see a case otherwise.  People can make compelling arguments that a show is better watched at 1X, and I mostly already agree, but why should consumers be denied the choice?

This is like always-online DRM, but worse because it has no pretense of protecting IP.  Only egos.