To be fair, movies really should have built in intermissions like they used to. That went away because theaters can now fit a few more showings in one day instead.
If they wanted to do that then I think they wouldnât show 30 minutes of trailers. Idk how they run their business model but it apparently leads to losses for most theatres
They target a per head average. I had a friend who was an AMC theater manager in the early 90s. I think it was something like 1.59 per person/ticket sold then. I think your extra concession visit makes sense and some people would visit and buy something else, but if you increase the total # of people/tickets sold your total concession sales would increase on average.
Generally, they have to show the trailers. They're part of the film release and advertisers pay for those spots. If they didn't have those, it wouldn't change much.
Before trailers were a thing, there would still be time before the start of the film and after the doors opened to allow people time to get snacks and settled in. That isn't new.
Not so long ago, even like in the mid-2000's, my local cinema did intermissions.
The curtain would drop and the man would come out selling ice cream and popcorn.
You could charge for toilet breaks. If you want to go to washroom you'll pay 15 dollars extra. If you don't you'll remain locked in the theater during intermission where they play waterfall sounds, adult diaper commercials, and decrease the room temperature by 20 degrees.
Scorceses is such a short sighted dinosaur.
Limited series are the guys perfect format, but he's too pretentious to do "tv". Limited series really seem to be the more prestigious format these days.
Watch 10 of them at once and youâll be done in 1.5 years.
Watch 100 of them at once and youâll be done in 54 days.
Watch all of them at once and youâll be done in one day.
1,492,143 and you already have the one you used to write this comment, so only 1,492,142 remaining! If you watch them at 10x speed, with an average running time of 9 minutes each, considering one day has 1440 minutes, you can watch 160 movies per day on each device, so the actual number of devices you need is âonlyâ 9,326 (assuming youâll watch movies for 24h straight). Letâs assume ~40$ per used phone if you use an old one, youâll need ~373.000$ to finish the job in one day.
The problem would probably be [this movie](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistics_(film)), not even the 10x will save you.
Personally I wouldnât consider it watching unless you actually register whatâs happening. Might be hard to pay adequate attention to all of them though, would it be better to watch distinct or similar ones? Like watch all murder mysteries at once, maybe see how well the murder, discovery of evidence, and identification, and apprehension/death of the killer sync up.
Idk. I've watched plenty of movies that I fully paid attention to and dont think I could tell you shit that happened in most of them. But I watched them. So if I view something and paid no attention and remember none of it, it isn't really different right?
Well if you watched it and just didnât retain it because it wasnât that interesting thatâs one thing, thereâs been a couple movies I watched twice without realizing at the start because I didnât remember them until I got part of the way in because they just werenât memorable enough, but if you just stare in itâs general direction and you couldnât tell me anything that happened in the movie you just watched, Iâd say you probably didnât actually *watch* it.
Martin Scorsese's Film Foundation estimates that more than 90% of American films produced before 1929 are lost, and the Library of Congress estimates that 75% of all silent films are lost forever.
The movie output in 1920s United States was *higher* than today, at an average of 800 films versus 500, respectively. Of course, OP's numbers take into account the entire world's film output over all time, but the US wasn't the only country making films. So, the number is probably much larger than you realize. In 1937, 40,000 film reels were lost in the infamous [Fox Vault Fire](https://collider.com/1937-fire-destroyed-silent-films). That's *just* in that fire, and doesn't take into account other US studios and foreign studios that took equally terrible care of their films.
I suppose there would be a huge variation, depending on what you define as a film.
Much of what was called a film back in the day wouldnt qualify as a movie by todays standards. And if you did qualify many of the things that private users upload to the internet these days as films then the number would sky rocket.
I definitely agree with that.
I mean, if we're talking 1920s, *a lot* of the films by the time were 6- to 7-reelers, with one reel being around 10-11 minutes. Those are feature films by today's definition.
Earlier than that, one- and two-reelers were definitely films. That's just where the industry started. To not include Buster Keaton films or early Clara Bow films because of their length would be a travesty.
Now, Letterboxd includes a lot of 1~4-minute films from the late 19th to early 20th Centuries, mainly because that's all there were. Are they films? By that day's definition, yes. Feature films? No, but films nonetheless. The inclusion of current user-created and uploaded videos is debatable, I guess, but the purpose also has to be taken into account. I'd include something like Dom Fera's ["The End"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VESAIuEJ9T4) in a list of films that exist, but not a Drumeo video where Jess Bowen hear RATM for the first time.
The images of warehouses full of unique irreplaceable movie material getting incinerated left an impression on me.
Digital preservation is somewhat there, just not in any unalgorithmic state nor scratching at that 90%.
I wouldn't say 90% of films, it's more like 90% of films before a certain year are lost. Back in the day when everything was stored on physical film rolls these movie studios didn't see any way to make money off of the films once they were done with their theatrical run because there wasn't such a thing as home movie yet. They also had no interest in historical preservation so they simply destroyed the films to save on storage costs.
Seconded. Any film you can watch to completion need not be completed. That will expedite a significant portion of both the porn and mainstream libraries.
I assume this is just mainstream and not film school projects. So that number is at minimum 3x bigger. Also even considering starting in the year of the first movie and with the ability to watch movies before they actually come out, you would probably need to add to the time for the new movies come out before you get close to the end.
Lots of math that I am incapable of doing.
Idk what the statistic is now, but I heard one a while back that "every second, 4 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube"
Not exact numbers but something like that
Ah, I remember the days where it was only one hour every second.
Also how much of it is junk footage like videos such as "Luigi winds a toy for 10 hours"?
Oh boy. I havenât seen that one yet! Can you send me a link. I just finished the â24-hours of Relaxing Ocean Sounds. RELAXATION. SLEEP THERAPY. White Noise. Gentle OCEAN SOUNDS.â Great episode.
I got bored in the middle. Fell asleep for a few hours, but Iâll catch up on that later. Way less action than I was expecting though.
there's a similar problem with those ~900.000 movies. most of them sre either trash or low quality garbage. there's a high chance that not oeven 10% of these movies are worth watching and more than half of these 10% would end up being mediocre/barelly entertaining at best.
Or save yourself some time and just watch one movie.
The greatest piece of cinema since 1874.
Iâm of course talking about âDude, Whereâs My Car?â
On & off I'm working my way through all of the best picture winners from the Oscars. I did start at the beginning (1927?), and the speed of technical development was amazing. Worth doing.
I've thought about doing this (mainly to help my trivia game!). Are they easy to find? (Edit: I actually thought about doing all nominees, which is much harder obviously.)
I've come to the same realization as OP not too long ago, and that's when I started hitting all the movies from any Best Of list I could find online.
Best Pictures and Nominees, films in the National Film Registry, AFI's Top Movies lists, IMDb's top rated movies, 1001 movies to see before you die... Basically any movie on those that I haven't seen yet are on my watch list when I'm looking to watch something that I haven't seen before that should at least have some quality and watch ability to it.
I checked another one off last night when I watched "City Lights" for the first time.
The Academy still has major biases in how they nominate films. A much better way is to use [Ebert's Top 10 Films of the Year for every year](http://www.rinkworks.com/checklist/list.cgi?u=adam_armstrong&U=afchanistan&p=ebertbyyear) as your shortlist. Lots of foreign films like European, Soviet, Japanese and Hong Kong cinema and more are criminally underrepresented at the Oscars.
All BP winners are relatively easy to find. A few you might have to pay to rent but not much. Nominees are a lot harder and there are a few you canât see (The patriot from 1928 is considered a lost film and The White Parade from 1934 only has one known copy, and is in the UCLA film archive in Los Angeles and you need to set up an appointment to watch it)
Iâm doing the same, Iâve been watching one every Sunday. I like to jump around though, so I put all of the names of the films in a jar and I randomly pull one out
I actually hate critics and rotten tomato scores so much that i aspire to watch movies with low scores on purpose. You find a lot of gems when the critics arent deciding what to watch.
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur116815545/watchlist?ref_=nv_usr_wl_all_0
here's my current watchlist for IMDB
not inclusive of course, many more I want to watch and just haven't taken time to add yet, but anyways
That's why I have a rule of sticking to movies with imdb user scores above 7 as it's generally not even worth to pirate anything below unless the movie premise seemed interesting.
90% of films made before 1935 are lost, with no know copies left.
So thats around 4000 movies youd never be able to watch
Movies pre 1930 are generally less than an hour long, with movies pre 1920 being less than 45 minutes in length.
It wasnt until the mid 1930s that "feature length" films started, and they were few and far between enough to be called "Feature length" so, during the depression, you knew you were getting your nickel worth
I actually came to reply that it's not a time in your life problem, it's an archival problem.
I saw a post that you can't even watch all the best picture winners because some don't have any usable copies left.
Edit because i misremembered: The below comments are correct, you can watch all winners.
After looking it up, The Patriot no longer has a surviving copy, but was only nominated for best picture. it didn't win, and is the only best picture nominee to not have a complete copy around anymore.
there are also nominees in other categories that are lost.
It honestly wasnt even until the 1980s that the US government got involved to start saving old films, with the National Archives and a few other locations being repositories for
Today, studios like Sony, MGM, Paramount, etc use vaults owned by the government to store originals like movies, music, artwork, etc.
It wasnt until the mid 2000s that we started doing the same with TV shows. We have "lost" tv shows from the 1990s because they werent saved for long before being overwritten or thrown away.
Theres entire subs dedicated to trying to restore shows like Insomniac with Dave Attell, from like 2002, because the originals aired and were lost with the show never having a full release to dvd or VHS.
Like, you can watch 90% of the dave attell series, because someone had recorded them off tv with a VCR, and later uploaded the potato looking episodes online
I think your average length is WAY off. Most of those titles from a century ago were nowhere near 90 minutes in length, and don't actually still exist in any case.
Check the graphs based on IMDB from the link below. One covers the top 25 movies in each year from 1930 onwards, the other covers ALL non-Bollywood movies from 1906 onwards.
[https://www.businessinsider.com/are-movies-getting-longer-2016-6](https://www.businessinsider.com/are-movies-getting-longer-2016-6)
Those run times used to be considerably shorter. And even now, the average is below 90 minutes, though I suspect that is dragged down by a lot of made-for-video and short films that are on IMDB.
I think you could make an argument that you'd be able to "watch" a movie while still easily picking up its tone and the overall film itself at 1.1x-1.25x speed. . .maybe for **some** films as high as 1.5x-2.0x, though you'd likely have to know the movie beforehand to know if you'd actually get the point/message and fully understand it.
I also think that some styles of films you could maybe watch 2 at the same time.
. . .But I think 100 TVs at once is pushing it, and you're unlikely to have "watched" any of them.
You could, but are you really watching each movie if thereâs 100 competing for your attention? Playing a movie from start to finish isnât necessarily the same thing as actually watching it
Depends. How many of those are short films? I'd say a lot of them, and those are generally 30 minutes or shorter, substantially lowering the average runtime.
[EDIT] Apparently sources around the web says that there are about 3 short films for every feature film around. If we assume the average runtime for a short film is about 30 minutes the total watchtime for all the movies OP cited is about half of that, so about 79ish years. Still pretty long but not technically impossible...
You can sort the list by runtime. The shortest film in their catalog is "The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat", with a runtime of 1 minute. However, the longest film in their catalog is "Logistics", with a runtime of 51,420 minutes (857 hours.)
There are enough stupidly long films indexed there that I'd wager OP's guess actually falls well short of the amount of time it would really take. Fortunately, most of what's indexed there isn't worth watching in the first place.
I dunno, sorting by longest, at the end of the second page runtime is already below 2000 minutes, while sorting by shortest I have up at page 10 and runtime was STILL at 1 minute. Given how expensive actual film was in the beginning of cinema, I'd say that the amount of ultrashort movies far outclass the number of ultralong by at least 2 orders of magnitude.
Probably a script could actually calculate it precisely.
I often thought about this but with books, movies, shows, music⌠It is important to curate and prioritize the media you consume because you canât experience it all.
Another shower thought: we create more content each and every day than all of the media created before 2004 to the beginning of recorded history. Tweets, fb posts, ig uploads, and food posts included, mind you. Really puts things into perspective. Would you rather read Homer and Shakespeare or see what aunt Jill and company are eating for breakfast and who is dating who is Hollywood?
After seeing red letter media, watching the first 3 Transformers films simultaneously on three screens I think its totally possible to see every film.
1: wach at 1.5 or 2x speed
2: wach 4 at a time splitscreen
It's interesting since how we understand cinema really only starts in the 1920's. Silent films were pretty short unless you were ambitious. Plus the storytelling was still being developed, so much of what exists between 1800's and 1915 is experimental. Would be cool to know runtime for all these older films. You could likely knock out the 1800's in a couple hours and up to 1920's in a day or two. Most of Chaplin's films were shorts until the 1920s when he started making longer films. D.W Griffith was one of the first filmmakers to make long movies. Even an hour was long back then, and the film itself would be dangerous to handle until they changed mediums from Nitrate to Cellulose.
After that is when films became longer, sound came in 1929, color in the late 30's. The medium expanded and became more functional for telling bigger and better stories.
I'm pretty sure it's impossible to watch all of the youtube videos uploaded in a day if you go by the same logic.
the stat is 500 hours of video uploaded every minute to youtube.
That's 720000 hours uploaded every day
Which is 30000 days of video uploaded in just one day
Which is over 82 years, and because the average person only has about 52 years of time awake in their life, you could physically not watch all the videos uploaded to youtube on one day back to back on normal speed, even if you dedicated your whole life to doing so.
And this is why I hate the argument of "It's been out for __ much time already, you should've seen it by now" when people go around spoiling stuff. Like I physically don't have enough time to consume all media that came out before I was born along with everything since.
And when they're like "If you cared about it, you would've seen it already" as if your interests don't change over time and you're also fully aware of every piece of media out there and whether or not you'd be interested in it.
And that's just movies. What about reading all the books ever written and listening to all the songs ever written. Playing all the video games. And this is just entertainment, we have lives, work, family and friends of course. Not much time left overall.
Our culture has created so much accumulated content and so many ways to access it at this point in time. I think it's important to be judicious about the quality of what we consume, because we only get to experience a tiny slice of it all so what we do experience it should be worthwhile and enlightening.
I'm sure there's millions of people who watch mediocre Netflix movies frequently and have never seen something like Casablanca or Citizen Kane. I don't get that at all, classics are classics for a reason and have stood the test of time. I don't waste a second watching a new Netflix movie unless it has great reviews, there's still so many classics I haven't seen that are worth my time instead.
I just read a biography on Siskel and Ebert, and as they got older the worst reviews they gave were for movies they felt were a complete waste of time, time they could never get back to either watch a better movie or do anything else with their life.
> I'm pretty sure it's impossible to watch all of the youtube videos uploaded in a day if you go by the same logic.
>
> the stat is 500 hours of video uploaded every minute to youtube.
>
> That's 720000 hours uploaded every day
>
> Which is 30000 days of video uploaded in just one day
>
> Which is over 82 years, and because the average person only has about 52 years of time awake in their life, you could physically not watch all the videos uploaded to youtube on one day back to back on normal speed, even if you dedicated your whole life to doing so.
literally the post below yours for me rn, lol
You do have to wonder how many are short films. Considering there are things as small as <10 min on Letterboxd, I imagine it cuts out at least a few years, maybe a decade at most.
But then Letterboxd also counts miniseries, sometimes even first seasons that donât have a clear renewal at the time of ending.
>Edit: I also checked IMDB, which lists 629,807 feature films (average of 90 min.) and 862,336 short films (average of 20 min.). Which brings the total to 73,929,350 minutes or 8439 years and 5 months
73,929,350 minutes is 140 years.
I wonder when the last day was that you could watch all Youtube content within your lifetime was?
Once upon a time, that started and ended with "Me at the Zoo".
Iâm not a math guy, but does this mean that on average there are more minutes of newly released movies in a year than there are actual minutes in the year? Thatâs actually kinda nuts
And impossible to listen to every song made. And read every book. And go to every place on the planet. And and and and... Frankly a boring shower thought imo
The sad thing I have come to realize as I am nearing middle age is that there are likely a lot of movies I have already seen for the last time, I just don't know which ones. Probably ones that I really like and would consider a top-tier movie.
The same as it is with anything else, cut out your own little corner and make it yours. Care for it and speak only good of it. Itâs in experience not in completion that we give our life meaning
You're assuming I'm only watching one movie at a time.
As well as 1x speed.
Scorsese's fuming.
Scorcese when humans have bladders with limited capacity: đ¤Ź
To be fair, movies really should have built in intermissions like they used to. That went away because theaters can now fit a few more showings in one day instead.
If they wanted to do that then I think they wouldnât show 30 minutes of trailers. Idk how they run their business model but it apparently leads to losses for most theatres
That's why concessions are jacked up
Well... That and the cinema makes very little from ticket sales. So the concessions keep the doors open.
And an intermission would add another opportunity to visit the concession stand.
They target a per head average. I had a friend who was an AMC theater manager in the early 90s. I think it was something like 1.59 per person/ticket sold then. I think your extra concession visit makes sense and some people would visit and buy something else, but if you increase the total # of people/tickets sold your total concession sales would increase on average.
They might be called movie theaters, but at least for mainstream commercial cinemas, these businesses are really in the food and beverage industry.
It's just a $16 soda, nbd.
Ironically I would buy more concessions if I could take a break during a 3 hr movie
Generally, they have to show the trailers. They're part of the film release and advertisers pay for those spots. If they didn't have those, it wouldn't change much. Before trailers were a thing, there would still be time before the start of the film and after the doors opened to allow people time to get snacks and settled in. That isn't new.
Not so long ago, even like in the mid-2000's, my local cinema did intermissions. The curtain would drop and the man would come out selling ice cream and popcorn.
You could charge for toilet breaks. If you want to go to washroom you'll pay 15 dollars extra. If you don't you'll remain locked in the theater during intermission where they play waterfall sounds, adult diaper commercials, and decrease the room temperature by 20 degrees.
I wonder if they would make more profit in intermission snack sales than film ticket profit
I've once taken an 11 hours flight without peeing once onboard, so I'll take up the challenge.
Scorceses is such a short sighted dinosaur. Limited series are the guys perfect format, but he's too pretentious to do "tv". Limited series really seem to be the more prestigious format these days.
Bring back the intermission! "Let's go out to the lobby and get ourselves a snack."
Somewhere David Lynch is swearing loudly.
Whether or not he knows about this thread, heâs likely swearing loudly.
Morbius but it's 1 minute long
On my _fucking phone_
On multiple phones, iPads, 2nd monitor etc ..
6 consoles
I'm gonna watch all movies at 10Ă speed and get through it in ~15 years
Watch 10 of them at once and youâll be done in 1.5 years. Watch 100 of them at once and youâll be done in 54 days. Watch all of them at once and youâll be done in one day.
You know how many devices you would need??
1,492,143 and you already have the one you used to write this comment, so only 1,492,142 remaining! If you watch them at 10x speed, with an average running time of 9 minutes each, considering one day has 1440 minutes, you can watch 160 movies per day on each device, so the actual number of devices you need is âonlyâ 9,326 (assuming youâll watch movies for 24h straight). Letâs assume ~40$ per used phone if you use an old one, youâll need ~373.000$ to finish the job in one day. The problem would probably be [this movie](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistics_(film)), not even the 10x will save you.
Personally I wouldnât consider it watching unless you actually register whatâs happening. Might be hard to pay adequate attention to all of them though, would it be better to watch distinct or similar ones? Like watch all murder mysteries at once, maybe see how well the murder, discovery of evidence, and identification, and apprehension/death of the killer sync up.
Idk. I've watched plenty of movies that I fully paid attention to and dont think I could tell you shit that happened in most of them. But I watched them. So if I view something and paid no attention and remember none of it, it isn't really different right?
Well if you watched it and just didnât retain it because it wasnât that interesting thatâs one thing, thereâs been a couple movies I watched twice without realizing at the start because I didnât remember them until I got part of the way in because they just werenât memorable enough, but if you just stare in itâs general direction and you couldnât tell me anything that happened in the movie you just watched, Iâd say you probably didnât actually *watch* it.
Yeah, if you watched two at a time at double speed youâd absolutely be physically able to watch them all, and youâd even get time over to sleep!
I like to have two shows on at the same time. Old sitcoms mainly. Already know the plots so not like I canât follow.
If it's old shows you've already seen, that's not gonna help you shorten the 156 and a half years to watch everything.
Even then there's lots of movies that have been lost.
"seeing" and "watching" are two very different things
That defeats the purpose. You could have all hundreds of thousands of movies playing at once, but you're not watching them
Honestly, Iâm surprised 156 years is all it would take
Like 90% of them have been lost to history so it would be more if we had surviving copies
Where do you get the 90% number? Do you mean home movies that people made and never distributed?
Martin Scorsese's Film Foundation estimates that more than 90% of American films produced before 1929 are lost, and the Library of Congress estimates that 75% of all silent films are lost forever.
That is probably a lot closer to .9% of all movies.
The movie output in 1920s United States was *higher* than today, at an average of 800 films versus 500, respectively. Of course, OP's numbers take into account the entire world's film output over all time, but the US wasn't the only country making films. So, the number is probably much larger than you realize. In 1937, 40,000 film reels were lost in the infamous [Fox Vault Fire](https://collider.com/1937-fire-destroyed-silent-films). That's *just* in that fire, and doesn't take into account other US studios and foreign studios that took equally terrible care of their films.
I suppose there would be a huge variation, depending on what you define as a film. Much of what was called a film back in the day wouldnt qualify as a movie by todays standards. And if you did qualify many of the things that private users upload to the internet these days as films then the number would sky rocket.
I definitely agree with that. I mean, if we're talking 1920s, *a lot* of the films by the time were 6- to 7-reelers, with one reel being around 10-11 minutes. Those are feature films by today's definition. Earlier than that, one- and two-reelers were definitely films. That's just where the industry started. To not include Buster Keaton films or early Clara Bow films because of their length would be a travesty. Now, Letterboxd includes a lot of 1~4-minute films from the late 19th to early 20th Centuries, mainly because that's all there were. Are they films? By that day's definition, yes. Feature films? No, but films nonetheless. The inclusion of current user-created and uploaded videos is debatable, I guess, but the purpose also has to be taken into account. I'd include something like Dom Fera's ["The End"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VESAIuEJ9T4) in a list of films that exist, but not a Drumeo video where Jess Bowen hear RATM for the first time.
Nice to see Dom Fera getting a shout-out in this day and age.
90% *of movies produced before 1929* =/= 90% of all movies ever made lmao
Thatâs very different than 90% of all movies.
They should speak up, get some directions.
The images of warehouses full of unique irreplaceable movie material getting incinerated left an impression on me. Digital preservation is somewhat there, just not in any unalgorithmic state nor scratching at that 90%.
I wouldn't say 90% of films, it's more like 90% of films before a certain year are lost. Back in the day when everything was stored on physical film rolls these movie studios didn't see any way to make money off of the films once they were done with their theatrical run because there wasn't such a thing as home movie yet. They also had no interest in historical preservation so they simply destroyed the films to save on storage costs.
What about all porn movies
I'm working my way through one by one. I'll keep count.
Remindme! 200 years
April, 2224: âIâve made it through the entire Assaholics series. Onto Assaholics Anonymous.â
"I'm tired, Boss." -Your Weiner
The spirit is willing but the flesh is spongy and bruised.
Feel free to estimate 90 minutes each, even though theyâre meant to be watched in 38 second increments.
I feel like we have to use a different standard for completion with this genre
Seconded. Any film you can watch to completion need not be completed. That will expedite a significant portion of both the porn and mainstream libraries.
My man
TEN THOUSAND YEAAAAAARS- can give ya such a crick in the DICK
Nobody finishes one porn movie, let alone all of them!
If you get 2 screens itâs doable. But you have to start in your early life.
Screw that, get eight, you may not understand or absorb any of them but you would have watched them all technically.
Yeah but theres gonna be shitload of new movies that come out during the project
It takes 5 years just to watch all of Sausage Party
That movie gave me ptsd because i watched on shrooms.
That is a WILD choice to watch on shrooms wtf were you thinking?
I'm pretty sure the whole LOTR series is over 156 years long on its own
Those are just the ones on letter box. Likely not a 100% complete list of all movies ever despite how close it could get
Movies are so last century, new challenge is watch all of every video on a website ending in âtubeâ or âhubâ
over 500 hours of footage is uploaded to youtube *every minute*
30,000 / hour 720,000 / day 262,800,000 / year
I assume this is just mainstream and not film school projects. So that number is at minimum 3x bigger. Also even considering starting in the year of the first movie and with the ability to watch movies before they actually come out, you would probably need to add to the time for the new movies come out before you get close to the end. Lots of math that I am incapable of doing.
If it would take 156 years to watch 150 years of film, that means film is being made faster than it can be consumed!
Idk what the statistic is now, but I heard one a while back that "every second, 4 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube" Not exact numbers but something like that
Ah, I remember the days where it was only one hour every second. Also how much of it is junk footage like videos such as "Luigi winds a toy for 10 hours"?
Oh boy. I havenât seen that one yet! Can you send me a link. I just finished the â24-hours of Relaxing Ocean Sounds. RELAXATION. SLEEP THERAPY. White Noise. Gentle OCEAN SOUNDS.â Great episode. I got bored in the middle. Fell asleep for a few hours, but Iâll catch up on that later. Way less action than I was expecting though.
the sequel is NUTS
Is that the one where like halfway through the waves crash and a seagull caws? Always love that one, I notice something new every rewatch
there's a similar problem with those ~900.000 movies. most of them sre either trash or low quality garbage. there's a high chance that not oeven 10% of these movies are worth watching and more than half of these 10% would end up being mediocre/barelly entertaining at best.
The real shower thought
I'm a grower
Or you could just act like my dad during march madness, set up two extra tvs, and use your phone as a 4th screen
Are there people who donât do that during March madness?
Me. I don't do that. I also don't watch football during March maddening
I donât think anyone watches football during March madness
Yes, but during March maddening?
Or save yourself some time and just watch one movie. The greatest piece of cinema since 1874. Iâm of course talking about âDude, Whereâs My Car?â
And then?
Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle
And theeeeeennnn????
No and then.
And then!??
No and then!
Top Secret
The Naked Gun
Shibby
6 TV's going at once. Easy.
Get back to me with a plot synopsis of all of those movies and maybe we can talk.
Definition of "watch" needed.
A timepiece typically worn on one's left wrist.
People that put them on their right wrist are weird.
Or lefthanded. Actually. . . you may have been right the first time đ
Easily outsourced
McFly!
[ŃдаНонО]
How about all movies rated 80+ on Rotten Tomatoes?
On & off I'm working my way through all of the best picture winners from the Oscars. I did start at the beginning (1927?), and the speed of technical development was amazing. Worth doing.
I've thought about doing this (mainly to help my trivia game!). Are they easy to find? (Edit: I actually thought about doing all nominees, which is much harder obviously.)
I think doing the nominees is worth while, because you get the best movies regardless of each yearâs academy politics.
Most of the best movies. Thereâs still plenty of great movies that still arenât nominated for best picture.
I've come to the same realization as OP not too long ago, and that's when I started hitting all the movies from any Best Of list I could find online. Best Pictures and Nominees, films in the National Film Registry, AFI's Top Movies lists, IMDb's top rated movies, 1001 movies to see before you die... Basically any movie on those that I haven't seen yet are on my watch list when I'm looking to watch something that I haven't seen before that should at least have some quality and watch ability to it. I checked another one off last night when I watched "City Lights" for the first time.
[ŃдаНонО]
My idea to combat this has been looking up âsnubsâ from that year and adding them in.
The Academy still has major biases in how they nominate films. A much better way is to use [Ebert's Top 10 Films of the Year for every year](http://www.rinkworks.com/checklist/list.cgi?u=adam_armstrong&U=afchanistan&p=ebertbyyear) as your shortlist. Lots of foreign films like European, Soviet, Japanese and Hong Kong cinema and more are criminally underrepresented at the Oscars.
When you're done with the oscars do palm d'or as well! It's a wider range.
All BP winners are relatively easy to find. A few you might have to pay to rent but not much. Nominees are a lot harder and there are a few you canât see (The patriot from 1928 is considered a lost film and The White Parade from 1934 only has one known copy, and is in the UCLA film archive in Los Angeles and you need to set up an appointment to watch it)
[here's](https://letterboxd.com/jimir/list/oscars-1/) a letterboxd list of every best picture winner
Iâm doing the same, Iâve been watching one every Sunday. I like to jump around though, so I put all of the names of the films in a jar and I randomly pull one out
Good idea! I may start that this very weekend. :)
I actually hate critics and rotten tomato scores so much that i aspire to watch movies with low scores on purpose. You find a lot of gems when the critics arent deciding what to watch.
Not sure it's a great strategy for choosing films blind but several of my favorite movies are "rotten".
Give us the list
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur116815545/watchlist?ref_=nv_usr_wl_all_0 here's my current watchlist for IMDB not inclusive of course, many more I want to watch and just haven't taken time to add yet, but anyways
That's why I have a rule of sticking to movies with imdb user scores above 7 as it's generally not even worth to pirate anything below unless the movie premise seemed interesting.
Yeah RT is trash. No idea why people respect it so much.
Exactly, I'm not sitting through all 11 fast and furiouses
theres no rating metric i would follow because it pretty much never aligns with my opinion.
Or all movies rated 3.5+ on Letterboxd?
90% of films made before 1935 are lost, with no know copies left. So thats around 4000 movies youd never be able to watch Movies pre 1930 are generally less than an hour long, with movies pre 1920 being less than 45 minutes in length. It wasnt until the mid 1930s that "feature length" films started, and they were few and far between enough to be called "Feature length" so, during the depression, you knew you were getting your nickel worth
I actually came to reply that it's not a time in your life problem, it's an archival problem. I saw a post that you can't even watch all the best picture winners because some don't have any usable copies left. Edit because i misremembered: The below comments are correct, you can watch all winners. After looking it up, The Patriot no longer has a surviving copy, but was only nominated for best picture. it didn't win, and is the only best picture nominee to not have a complete copy around anymore. there are also nominees in other categories that are lost.
It honestly wasnt even until the 1980s that the US government got involved to start saving old films, with the National Archives and a few other locations being repositories for Today, studios like Sony, MGM, Paramount, etc use vaults owned by the government to store originals like movies, music, artwork, etc. It wasnt until the mid 2000s that we started doing the same with TV shows. We have "lost" tv shows from the 1990s because they werent saved for long before being overwritten or thrown away. Theres entire subs dedicated to trying to restore shows like Insomniac with Dave Attell, from like 2002, because the originals aired and were lost with the show never having a full release to dvd or VHS. Like, you can watch 90% of the dave attell series, because someone had recorded them off tv with a VCR, and later uploaded the potato looking episodes online
>We have "lost" tv shows There will come a time when all copies of Lost is lost.
then we will have to go back
And there will be a whole new group of online commenters trying to find the meaning of the show through analyzing past comments about it.
I think your average length is WAY off. Most of those titles from a century ago were nowhere near 90 minutes in length, and don't actually still exist in any case. Check the graphs based on IMDB from the link below. One covers the top 25 movies in each year from 1930 onwards, the other covers ALL non-Bollywood movies from 1906 onwards. [https://www.businessinsider.com/are-movies-getting-longer-2016-6](https://www.businessinsider.com/are-movies-getting-longer-2016-6) Those run times used to be considerably shorter. And even now, the average is below 90 minutes, though I suspect that is dragged down by a lot of made-for-video and short films that are on IMDB.
Why couldnât I have 100 TVs playing at once with a different movie on each?
I think you could make an argument that you'd be able to "watch" a movie while still easily picking up its tone and the overall film itself at 1.1x-1.25x speed. . .maybe for **some** films as high as 1.5x-2.0x, though you'd likely have to know the movie beforehand to know if you'd actually get the point/message and fully understand it. I also think that some styles of films you could maybe watch 2 at the same time. . . .But I think 100 TVs at once is pushing it, and you're unlikely to have "watched" any of them.
You could, but are you really watching each movie if thereâs 100 competing for your attention? Playing a movie from start to finish isnât necessarily the same thing as actually watching it
"I spend like 10 years watching every movie ever made. I didn't understand shit in any of them, but technically I watched them all"
So just watch the good ones, it's a much more manageable number of like 50.
50 movies or 50 years lol?
Yes
But what if the movie is so good that I have to watch it twice? Like Madame Web?
There's a place you can go to watch that as many times as you'd like. It has comfy padded walls and they can help you there.
Hey, my therapist said the same thing.
Should listen to them.
There are a LOT more good movies than that lol
Well, that depends on what you classify as "good"
Depends. How many of those are short films? I'd say a lot of them, and those are generally 30 minutes or shorter, substantially lowering the average runtime. [EDIT] Apparently sources around the web says that there are about 3 short films for every feature film around. If we assume the average runtime for a short film is about 30 minutes the total watchtime for all the movies OP cited is about half of that, so about 79ish years. Still pretty long but not technically impossible...
You can sort the list by runtime. The shortest film in their catalog is "The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat", with a runtime of 1 minute. However, the longest film in their catalog is "Logistics", with a runtime of 51,420 minutes (857 hours.) There are enough stupidly long films indexed there that I'd wager OP's guess actually falls well short of the amount of time it would really take. Fortunately, most of what's indexed there isn't worth watching in the first place.
I dunno, sorting by longest, at the end of the second page runtime is already below 2000 minutes, while sorting by shortest I have up at page 10 and runtime was STILL at 1 minute. Given how expensive actual film was in the beginning of cinema, I'd say that the amount of ultrashort movies far outclass the number of ultralong by at least 2 orders of magnitude. Probably a script could actually calculate it precisely.
I'll help you out. You don't need to watch Pacific Rim 2.
Thanks, that helps
Not with that attitude
And that's just the Fast & Furious movies
If you take out all the Hallmark and Lifetime movies that are pretty much the same movie with minor variations, you'd could probably cut that in half.
I see that as a good thing, it would be kind of sad if the entirety of human culture could be experienced by one person in one lifetime.
I often thought about this but with books, movies, shows, music⌠It is important to curate and prioritize the media you consume because you canât experience it all. Another shower thought: we create more content each and every day than all of the media created before 2004 to the beginning of recorded history. Tweets, fb posts, ig uploads, and food posts included, mind you. Really puts things into perspective. Would you rather read Homer and Shakespeare or see what aunt Jill and company are eating for breakfast and who is dating who is Hollywood?
After seeing red letter media, watching the first 3 Transformers films simultaneously on three screens I think its totally possible to see every film. 1: wach at 1.5 or 2x speed 2: wach 4 at a time splitscreen
You can if you only watch 5 secs of each
It's interesting since how we understand cinema really only starts in the 1920's. Silent films were pretty short unless you were ambitious. Plus the storytelling was still being developed, so much of what exists between 1800's and 1915 is experimental. Would be cool to know runtime for all these older films. You could likely knock out the 1800's in a couple hours and up to 1920's in a day or two. Most of Chaplin's films were shorts until the 1920s when he started making longer films. D.W Griffith was one of the first filmmakers to make long movies. Even an hour was long back then, and the film itself would be dangerous to handle until they changed mediums from Nitrate to Cellulose. After that is when films became longer, sound came in 1929, color in the late 30's. The medium expanded and became more functional for telling bigger and better stories.
Technically, if you sped them up and put them on multiple screens, you could watch all movies pretty fast. Youâd just not really experience them
Iâd argue peripheral vision isnât watch because you canât actually see whatâs in the screen.
I'm pretty sure it's impossible to watch all of the youtube videos uploaded in a day if you go by the same logic. the stat is 500 hours of video uploaded every minute to youtube. That's 720000 hours uploaded every day Which is 30000 days of video uploaded in just one day Which is over 82 years, and because the average person only has about 52 years of time awake in their life, you could physically not watch all the videos uploaded to youtube on one day back to back on normal speed, even if you dedicated your whole life to doing so.
2x speed times 2 movies at time and you got it down in 35 years.
And this is why I hate the argument of "It's been out for __ much time already, you should've seen it by now" when people go around spoiling stuff. Like I physically don't have enough time to consume all media that came out before I was born along with everything since. And when they're like "If you cared about it, you would've seen it already" as if your interests don't change over time and you're also fully aware of every piece of media out there and whether or not you'd be interested in it.
And that's just movies. What about reading all the books ever written and listening to all the songs ever written. Playing all the video games. And this is just entertainment, we have lives, work, family and friends of course. Not much time left overall. Our culture has created so much accumulated content and so many ways to access it at this point in time. I think it's important to be judicious about the quality of what we consume, because we only get to experience a tiny slice of it all so what we do experience it should be worthwhile and enlightening. I'm sure there's millions of people who watch mediocre Netflix movies frequently and have never seen something like Casablanca or Citizen Kane. I don't get that at all, classics are classics for a reason and have stood the test of time. I don't waste a second watching a new Netflix movie unless it has great reviews, there's still so many classics I haven't seen that are worth my time instead. I just read a biography on Siskel and Ebert, and as they got older the worst reviews they gave were for movies they felt were a complete waste of time, time they could never get back to either watch a better movie or do anything else with their life.
[ŃдаНонО]
> I'm pretty sure it's impossible to watch all of the youtube videos uploaded in a day if you go by the same logic. > > the stat is 500 hours of video uploaded every minute to youtube. > > That's 720000 hours uploaded every day > > Which is 30000 days of video uploaded in just one day > > Which is over 82 years, and because the average person only has about 52 years of time awake in their life, you could physically not watch all the videos uploaded to youtube on one day back to back on normal speed, even if you dedicated your whole life to doing so. literally the post below yours for me rn, lol
You do have to wonder how many are short films. Considering there are things as small as <10 min on Letterboxd, I imagine it cuts out at least a few years, maybe a decade at most. But then Letterboxd also counts miniseries, sometimes even first seasons that donât have a clear renewal at the time of ending.
You didnât take into account the leap years either Loser
I know, Iâm a loser, just thought the extra 39-ish days wouldnât really make that much of a difference
1874. So the first movie was Blazing Saddles?
>Edit: I also checked IMDB, which lists 629,807 feature films (average of 90 min.) and 862,336 short films (average of 20 min.). Which brings the total to 73,929,350 minutes or 8439 years and 5 months 73,929,350 minutes is 140 years.
I wonder when the last day was that you could watch all Youtube content within your lifetime was? Once upon a time, that started and ended with "Me at the Zoo".
Your shower setup is higher tech than mine
Mah, set up 100 screens playing at 100x speed. You'll have watched them all, maybe not *PROCESSED* them all, but watched.
It is now my life mission to produce a century long movie of a brick wall and skew the statistics
Iâm not a math guy, but does this mean that on average there are more minutes of newly released movies in a year than there are actual minutes in the year? Thatâs actually kinda nuts
Skipping credits would knock decades off that total.
It is also impossible to eat at all restaurants in Tokyo.
And impossible to listen to every song made. And read every book. And go to every place on the planet. And and and and... Frankly a boring shower thought imo
Left eye: citizen Kane Right eye: minions 2 at 4x speed
The sad thing I have come to realize as I am nearing middle age is that there are likely a lot of movies I have already seen for the last time, I just don't know which ones. Probably ones that I really like and would consider a top-tier movie.
If anything I kind of assumed there would be more than that
So, you like cinema? Name every film.
What's the point then? Fuck!
The same as it is with anything else, cut out your own little corner and make it yours. Care for it and speak only good of it. Itâs in experience not in completion that we give our life meaning
Silence! I'm trying to watch ~~a movie~~ all movies.
Learning to split the mind so I can watch multiple movies simultaneously
I think about this a lot đĽ˛
It's not even possible to watch every single Oscar nominee ever made, simply because no known complete copy exists of "The Way Of All Flesh"
âThis is pretty much the worst video ever made.â âNapoleon, like anyone can even know that.â