PewDiePie

[Flymetothemun]

I'll suppose a lot of this has to do with personal preference, and the kind of video you're watching, but you're right about 'that'. I don't know if you've ever noticed, but days of the long take are rare and few, just observe most movies and especially commercials ... there's a scene change about every 10 seconds or less. There is purpose to this. I'm sure we've a legitimate filmmaker or two in here who can and might expound on that.

I'm not a filmmaker by any stretch of the imagination, but I'll put my 2 cents in.

I'd say that this is modern tech combined with the current culture.

Back in the golden age of cinema, you had film. It's a lot easier to cut and splice together longer bits than shorter bits of film, and the more you have to edit the more you have to pay the editors and the wages of everybody concerned. Nowadays, you have digital files which can be edited together much easier than film. back then, for moving shots you generally only had track dollies, wheeled tripods holding the camera, and putting the camera in a car. Nowadays, you have cranes, steadicams, and various other physical and digital stabilization technologies. Moving shots create more of a sense of "action", or at least make it much easier, but moving shots can become boring if left for too long. Therefore, you cut many moving shots together to keep the action moving. And, while we're at action, let's talk about sound. Back then, and now we're talking about the 30's-50's, your microphones were big. This meant that you either had to A) put them on a boom or use the technique first used by Orson Welles in Citizen Kane and hide them in a false fabric ceiling. But, with a boom (which is what you generally had, other than putting the mic behind the camera which wouldn't have picked up voices too well), you have to have a very "shallow" set, otherwise the camera will see the boom. Shallow sets don't leave a lot of room for action. Therefore, you have to think about what you're doing and linger on the shot for longer.

And as for the culture potion of my statement, we've become a very fast culture. We want our food right now and we want to get to get across the country in a few hours. I'd say that many just aren't patient enough for a long take film, or even a long film for that matter. And if films with long takes aren't in demand, then the law of supply and demand states that less of them will be made or that there will be a surplus. There isn't a surplus, so what does that tell you? People want fast, action-packed films. The huge amount of superhero and other children's movies demonstrates this to be very much true. Once again, I reiterate that our culture doesn't seem patient enough for a long, drawn-out film. But, I'd also say that this is in combination with the fact that many haven't seen a long-take film. If you go to the theatre, you won't see them, therefore, you'll never have seen one unless you are willing to go on the computer or what have you an look for a tape of one. I remember the first time I saw a long-take, it was Citizen Kane, but the one that had the most effect on me was Grand Hotel. I was never truly "hit" from a movie before Grand Hotel. But, the sequence where Baron von Geigern meets Grusinskaya in her room for the first time is the most beautiful sequence I have ever seen. I had to pause the film because I must've cried for 15 minutes.

And then, you have the element of money. It costs a LOT more to make a film nowadays, and it seems that studios will only fund films that will succeed. After all, would you provide a business loan to a very "niche" business? Therefore, there isn't as much experimentation. And you might think of independent filmmakers, but they don't have the theater access that the "big boys" have.

Then again, this might just be me pulling things out of my ass unconsciously, but this is my opinion on the whole matter.