Submitted by bqzs t3_10nildz in television
Was watching a nature documentary and as someone that is a chronic second-screener, it was hard to actually maintain my attention. My roommate and I will watch subtitled shows, but sometimes we're just "not in the mood" and would rather watch something that allows us to also veg on our phones at the same time. I've personally seen a rise in reality TV shows that seemed designed to exist as background noise, like the Circle or all of those friendly competition shows.
This is also speculation but I have to wonder if some shows, knowing they can only bank on 50% of their audiences visual attention but maybe 75% of their auditory attention, have started putting more auditory cues or "what's this" type dialogue to cue their "viewer" to pay attention, or if reality shows have started including more narration/reminders of what's actually happening, that kind of thing.
Then again, there are lots of counter-examples to suggest that viewers are capable of paying attention to subtitled shows like Squid Game and other prestige TV shows that are still being analyzed shot-by-shot by their viewers.
KingEuronIIIGreyjoy t1_j68wymq wrote
I think that's just one of the issues with watching stuff at home. We have those other distractions and there's no penalty to looking at your phone or talking with someone else. In a movie theater, that's not acceptable (or at least it shouldn't be, I see way too many people pulling out their phones and distracting me with the brightness while the movie's playing). James Cameron made a point about that recently; when you see a movie in the theater, you're consciously choosing to give yourself entirely to a piece of art. All of your attention is on the sight and sound of the movie (or again, it should be) for however long it lasts. The home viewing environment is just entirely different.