> There’s a lot of story or visual lulls where if I don’t have a second screen, I’ll just end up wandering away from the TV and won’t finish the show.

I think a lot of people feel this way, and not to place too much faith in TV show writers but this seems like a shame as it limits what experiences can be delivered by the medium.

This is exactly what has happened with movies, as well. At some point in the 2010's I noticed that in many movies I watched almost every shot was in motion. No moment of stillness or quieter reflection, just constant noise and motion, even in movies I thought were particularly good like the new Mad Max movie.

I think it's essentially a battle being fought between screens: the movie can't let the modern audience's attention waver for even a second, otherwise they might look down at their "second screen", lose track of the plot and consequently believe the movie wasn't that great.

This sucks because restful or reflective moments can give you a sense of sheltering, or the calm before a storm (for example), but you just can't get that feeling without moments where the camera calms down and people stop shouting.

Marvel movies are a good example. They even use cutting of food and sandwiches as a very common transition to slow things down but keep them “tight”.

Marvel movies are all a prime example of the “all filler” garbage remake movies with sequel after sequel, advertising to you and fulfilling the lowest common denominator. Marvel movies are trash. All the phony superhero movies are made distractions for grown men to act like kids with superhero figures. They all are getting political, I can’t believe how duped they have “critical thinking” “hackers.”

I've taken to relentlessly using the 30-second skip if there's a side-plot that doesn't entertain me on a show I otherwise enjoy.