It’s a shame it isn’t discussed in the article, but I wonder “What about TV?”

I watch a lot more TV shows than I do films, not just because TV is longer but usually TV has the more interesting story to tell.

That isn’t to say films aren’t interesting, it’s just that I wonder if the shift is the dividing line between generations. Films were where all the big stars were. TV was seen as a stepping stone. Now TV has a similar and sometimes even higher level of prestige.

The article does touch on length for a moment, but doesn’t dig in. When it comes to TV you might only need to watch 22 minutes, 44 minutes, maybe an hour to get a solid feel for where the story is going. Plus it has a logical stopping point.

For a film you might get 20 minutes in but you’re not sure. Should you stick with it? I suppose better films aren’t usually this way, but should you watch just a little more and find out?

Both have their place. Both can be great.

Gez Z didn’t grow up with watching movies. They grew up on social media. Cinematic story telling isn’t something they’re farmilur with as a form of daily entertainment.

I don’t blame them for this. But it definitely shows in their work. Their own generation aren’t interested in their stuff, by and large. Sure, there’s some that watch and enjoy it but the audience they’re putting this out to who are actually interested are older. And they see their work as it is - not as good as past efforts by generations before Gen Z.

It’s why the film industry is drowning right now. There is an audience still there for film. But the majority of it isn’t Gen Z. And that’s the problem. There lies the disconnect.

If you want Gen Z attention and dollars, the film industry isn’t where you should be aiming your sights at. Because they aren’t the audience for film. Which obviously means, you should cater the film industry to the audience THAT IS ALREADY THERE.

And that ain’t Gen Z…

Gen-Z and later generations have brainrot caused by social media.