Someone tell me how that's a problem. Maybe the decades old films are just as interesting as a lecture and having troubles at a lecture at uni isn't unheard of.

I think two-hour movies are soon to be a thing of the past. But, will people pay premium prices to watch a one-hour TV episode on the big screen? One hour is all anyone can handle anymore, and then only if they can also look at their phones, they get the shakes if they can't look at their phones.

When we switch to XR/AR goggles worn every waking moment, that will be the end of movie theaters, and so many other things. Only a few will survive, like drive-ins today.

I don't think it's just the old man in me saying we're heading in a bad direction.

The only ones as a group avoiding this are the "elite". The filthy rich don't let their kids use this tech. Their kids go to schools like they were before smartphones. Pencil, paper, and good grades required to pass. I mean the billionaires, there's a huge difference between $100 million, which is rich to we poors, and $1 billion+. We down here tend to group them all together, but they are not the same. One-hundred million is the new middle class.

Understood. You have no identity within reality, and thus everything is suspect to be artificial. Which is the state of Being within reality: non-belief (not merely as reality, but as a potentiality of reality).

One is drawn into a conclusion which is based upon the presupposition of non-reality. Which leads them deeper into their own suspicions, i.e, things and even critiques are not real, which means 'I am Correct', perpetually.

It seems complicated. Such a interesting state of being. Continue...

When movies become great again (MMGA) then we will watch them with rapture attention.

What we have now are filmmakers who are attempting to remake the magic of films from their childhood (when films represented a kind of currency, or surplus value) or else draw us into a retrospective continuation of filmia-as-philosophy. Like scripture vs. apologetics (if one can follow).

Late-medieval and European-rennaissance art was actually reactionary, prescriptive, imitative craftsmanship. What we often conceptualize as masterpiece is actually imitation (Roman classical-cum-Greek, Van Eyk, etc..), which falls far short of the truly revolutionary. We remember film as the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle version of painting-as-art, when it was historically nothing more than coding (presentation).

Which means we have an artwork which is imitating an artwork, which was an imitation. Which is boring. And people who want a job in that industry are willing to observe the small number of instances in which true artistic innovation was evident, but don't actually believe they will be permitted to engage in such exploration. Which is boring and trite.