> Is it a loss of attention span, or is the 2-hour feature film simply an outdated format for the current generation?
Why would you think it's an outdated format for the current generation if not for their loss of attention span?
They also allow for much better subscriber retention.
But the same applies. If attention span was not an issue, the episodes could be longer and allow for even more interesting development. ;)
Also see what Netflix is doing for example, with explaining the plot multiple times and often very literally. You could even argue that multiple episodes are necessary today so that the plot can be explained explicitly and repeated enough often so it sticks.
I don't think people can focus on any movies anymore, period.
I used to host movie night for the friend group, because I was the one with a decent home theater setup, but we stopped because people just can't get through movies anymore. Same with family. We'd always put on a movie at night when family were over for a visit, but we don't anymore. Within 5 minutes of the movie starting, everyone's on their phones or getting up to do other things. Why even bother hosting?
I even let the guest(s) choose the movie so they're not subjected to all that boring "character development" and "establishing shots" in movies I go for, and they still can't make it more than 5-10 minutes. My teenage kid can't even make it through movies with zero quiet parts, designed specifically for that age group. Not into it at all--she puts YouTube on at 2x-2.5x speed and "watches" two videos at a time while playing video games.
I was a film student in the 90s, I would watch a dozen films over a weekend. Now, if I want to sit through a film and give it my full attention I have to either go to a movie theatre or break the movie up into a series of bite-sized segments. If I want to get lost in a book I have to go camping somewhere away from any cell towers.
I don't think film students today are less interested in film. Their attention spans are shot.