What do you think?

I'd rather watch 3 movies in 3 separate windows at 0.5x each.

>>70882500
>>70882531
>not just reading summaries
Plebs

>>70882546
Too much effort.
I just copy the comments of other shitposters.

File: schleckfail.gif (3MB, 320x344px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

3MB, 320x344px

>>70882500
you have reached a point where you think the more movies your consume the better you are at autism.

movies are meant for entertainment and sometimes even literacy. none of this can be gained at 1.33x.

my advice:
do something else for a while and watch only movies that genuinly interdast you.

>>70882500

I ask my secretary to watch the movies for me and then make a report which I read during my lunch

>>70882500
you should be ashamed if you do this.

I actually do 1.44x for slower/older paced movies

>>70882930
I do that too and I rewind an action scene and watch it upside down, with one eye closed and other variations to achieve the 'let's show that explosion multiple times, because it is expensive and it's the 80s'-feeling

>>70882604
you're at the point where you're seriously responding to maymays.

>>70882500
I had to watch stalker at 1.5

Distorts audio too much for me. Old Buster Keaton and Chaplin movies are a bit funnier 1.5

>>70882604
1.3 is a little too fast for my liking but movies are perfectly digestible this way. At 1.1x I can't tell ANY changes in audio (besides maybe the score) and I save 10% of my time. For a 2 hour movie that's 12 minutes. Is your time not valuable to you? I don't understand. My enjoyment isn't impacted.