How many movies did you see last year?
What are your plans for this one?
200 hundred maybe. I think that's a decent goal.
htnarama
I logged 423 films in 2015, hiding shorts it was 354.
For 2016 I've done one of those dumb community challenge things which I will try to keep to, this one seems fun http://letterboxd.com/machill54/list/2016-cult-movie-challenge/
592 excluding shorts. came up way short of my intended meager 2 per day. will do better this year or may yahweh strike me down
Let's get some followers rollin
http://letterboxd.com/AlphaPapa/
Just got into films this summer, have 80 logged, with probably 20 that I watched before I started being critical of movies and feel I need watch again before rating. Plus there are many many more that I've seen but don't remember watching. My goal is 300 movies this year, have at least three times that amount on my list of movies to watch.
>>64340357
Profile? I won't judge.
Why is she so perfect lads?
http://letterboxd.com/amaranth/film/the-hateful-eight/
>>64341027
Nudes when?
>>64340285
FOLLOWED
>>64341027
http://letterboxd.com/amaranth/film/carol-2015/
What did she mean by this?
>>64341027
>starting the new year off with a meme user
you already blew it
maybe next year you'll get some taste
960 or something like that
>punq got married and had a baby this year
>still managed to watch close to 4000 films
>>64343293
what's your excuse /lbg/?
>>64343372
well personally I don't watch movies on 4x speed and sometimes two at once
>>64343763
does punq? wouldn't surprise me
>>64343919
I don't think so. I've talked to him a few times before and what he says is basically "I don't have a life outside of watching movies lol ;)" but that doesn't seem to be true. He appears to be genuinely obsessed with film, though.
264 previously unseen. Probably low 300s in total.
Add me fuckers. http://letterboxd.com/ocarina98/
>>64343293
>my wife's son
>>64344305
>>/v/
http://letterboxd.com/evanredwings/ is this guy for real? or just a troll
>>64345236
>Sports Fanatic
definitely a troll
what are you watching the first day of 2016 lads?
>>64345332
Got the Criterion BBS collection for Christmas, so I'm going to try and squeeze King of Marvin Gardens in.
>>64345332
Signs, pretty excited
>>64345332
prolly gonna watch knights of cups
>>64345332
I'll be watching my weight today and all year :^)
>>64345888
Good on you.
THIS IS OFFICIALLY THE YEAR OF A BRIGHTER SUMMER DAY AND OUT 1 ON BLU WHO'S PUMPED?
>>64346781
pretty pumped desu
>Eli Hayes
>SilentDawn
>Todd Gaines
>no way to hide their reviews, even blocking doesn't help
>>64348351
They're even worse than Del during his prime
>>64346781
Already pre-ordered the Jacques Rivette box set senpai
>memetrips
Start 2016 out right by following the best user http://letterboxd.com/Smoothhands/
>>64350252
you have no personality and your taste is questionable
>>64345332
I finished Life Aquatic about 10 minutes after midnight.
>I've only seen 13 movies from 2015
From best to worst, rate me.
>>64341027
>the revenant
>4 stars
where were you when you realized that amaranths taste is literally yikes-tier
>>64350765
Celebrating some holiday or other in 2014.
>>64350588
those are all flicks though
only 90 movies but all in cinema
>>64343293
i can't even imagine what punq would look like
>>64350765
post profile i'm sure we can dig up a few yikes
>>64350588
How do you sort them like this?
>>64350588
0/10, pleb af, get some taste
226
I've been slacking this last two months cause of uni.
2260
I've been slacking uni last two months cause of this
65464881354 - All in Cinema
>>64350447
same to you fag
>>64351065
make a list
>>64345332
I watched The Look of Silence this morning and just finished watching The 400 Blows, which was amazing. Planning on watching Lilya 4-ever tonight.
>>64350252
>no favorite films so others can roughly estimate your taste
>that Empire review
no
>WKW flick
>All the Leaves Are Brown starts playing
Rostova here
Might quit desu
>>64353260
post profile
>>64350588
>ex machina
>beasts of no nation
only good ones
Mad Max and Star Wars are decent but the rest is shit
>>64356362
>ex machina
>better than anything
why eye kay eee ess
my curve is mad fucked up cause i rated the thousand shite-to-average movies i saw when i was younger before i discovered films. removing them is the most aesthetic thing to do but it feels wrong. what im to do????????????
>>64356656
watch more good films
>>64356656
If you rate shite-to-average movies accordingly it shouldnt even matter
>>64356656
>curve-based autism
It's 2006! Time to start watching movies. One per day, at least.
>>64356896
>more half stars than five stars
>>64357040
>I unironically believe there are more masterpieces than shit films.
>>64350252
>misunderstanding and misusing the mathematics of distribution in order to say any distribution "should" be normative, i.e. arguing that personal taste within an entirely subjective artistic medium should yield a ball curve
wew lad I knew you were a pleb but come on now
>>64350252
>hasn't watched a single film so far this year
d r o p p e d
If you care about curve aesthetics you'll drop half-stars, anon. Our girl doesn't use them so why do you?
Do you ever have to watch a movie multiple times before you are sure what you feel about it? Until you get it on a level other than just information?
I mean with most movies. It's kind of like dating someone. I go out a few times, and I either start liking the person more and more and either end up liking the person as a friend or falling in love with the person, or feel that the person is a total shitbag or just isn't my cup of tea.
I guess I'm saying movies are my friends, because I don't have any.
It's nice to fall in love and fun to hate.
>>64358072
>our girl
speak for yourself chief
>>64358253
yes
I have no clue what my curve looks like
http://letterboxd.com/redwell/
>>64357736
If your rating movies period you're rating them in relation to previous theatrical experiences. Watching more movies will inherently change your rating criteria as a movie you once thought was better than average turns out to just be average based on your new cumulative criteria. Its a very fluid process that in the end should and will be normative.
What youre implying is that if the only movie you have ever seen is 'Citizen Kane' you should inherently rate it 5/5 which is retarded because you have no previous knowledge to base that rating on. In that situation it should be rated a 2.5/5 because it is the average for you as it the the only movie youve ever seen
>>64358323
I'll give you a hint:it looks like shit
>>64358374
In saying that, you're basically assuming that every person will ultimately connect with every film in the exact same way and appreciate the same things in the same movies the same way once the knowledge of which you speak is eventually accumulated.
This is simply not the case.
>>64358374
>what you're implying is
No that was never implied, you're just an imbecile who understands neither art nor statistics enough to discuss them properly.
>>64358374
>I will now explain why differing, subjective interpretation and appreciation of art isn't really a thing using half-assed mathematics I don't actually comprehend
>>64358496
What you were implying is that you can judge something with the absent of a precedent, or you are judging thing based upon a presumed precedent that you have never really experience both of which are inherently flawed
>>64358323
I don't get how people like Before Sunrise. Why would you want to listen to two hours of people spouting dumb pseudo philosophical platitudes for hours?
Couldn't even finish it tbqhwyf
i logged/saw about 620 films, some of which were shorts (although not that many). i would say that the total number of features i saw was about 530.
was trying to do 2 a day average, and will probably try (and fail at) the same this year.
going to try and watch more complete filmographies (or at least, have more of a method to choosing what i'm going to watch)
>>64358710
Judging something in relation to a precedent in no way ensures or even suggests that any given rating curve should resemble a bell curve. This is why you are retarded.
>Amaranth
Fuck movies desu.
Hello
http://letterboxd.com/lozjudai/
>>64359394
try watching a film instead, pal
>>64359451
All shit versions of series limited by meme runtimes and if it isn't a short movie it's a fucking 7 hour Tarr movie about miserable potato farming fucks.
Miniseries & documents > high quality series > films = normal series > movies.
http://letterboxd.com/yawned/
Trying to learn by adding whatever you guys watch to my watch list , link your profile if you watch cool movies so I can follow you
>>64337492
http://letterboxd.com/autobotmike18/list/all-2015-films-ranked-from-most-to-least/
>>64359201
Youre right. its actual a steep linear distribution, because you only watch 'good' movies am I right?
>>64358773
I like the naturalism. It opened my eyes to that kind of picture. It's simple and sweet. Gives me a happy cry whenever I rewatch it.
>>64359544
Like g*ddamn 2015 absolutely annihilated any and all feels I had towards movies. Waht a shit year
>>64359695
No, the opposite actually. The majority of movies are subpar so if you have taste your distribution should be heavily weighted on the lower rating side and should (fairly uniformly) approach zero as you move to the right.
>>64359956
>STOP LIKING WHAT I DONT LIKE
A U D I SM
>>64360080
If your rating spread resembles anything different than what I just outlined, it means you lack discernment and refinement and are the art critic equivalent of a whore: unthinking and easily entertained.
Watch more films.
>>64360217
Here we have a pseudo intellectual know-it-all STEM autist.
Please
kill urself
>>64359956
>>64360217
gotcha rather than truly judging on a cumulative precedent and a basic understanding of statistic you went with the try hard approach
>>64359956
>The majority of movies are subpar
Then you don't know what "subpar" means.
>>64360315
shhh dont upset his 'muh feelings' rating criteria
>>64360315
are you assuming there are and equal number of healeys and tarkovskys in the world, and that their output is similar?
it is much easier to make a bad movie than a mediocre one
>>64360240
The only pseudo-intellectual here is the faggot who labeled a link to a wiki article on normal distribution "essential reading" and yet doesn't understand normal distribution. That is the definition of a pseudo-intellectual.
>>64360520
there you just admitted you judging is based on a perceived precedent rather than anything tangible
>>64360258
You don't have a basic understanding of statistics, and you don't have a basic understanding of how statistics applies to art criticism. You skimmed a wikipedia article about normal distribution and decided it supported your viewpoint and decided to link it in your profile bio like a smug pseud without understanding what normal distribution even is or what it implies.
That's what this entire conversation is about.
>>64360728
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distributionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distributionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distributionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distributionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distributionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distributionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distributionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distributionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distributionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distributionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distributionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
>>64360757
Maybe you should try reading the article instead of linking it a bunch of times
>>64360832
maybe you should judge things based on what youve actually experience rather than vague assumptions
Fucking autistic homos >>64360757
>>64360832
>>64360907
>>64360646
>>64360545
>>64360520
>6
>>64360457
>>64360315
>>64360907
>vague assumptions
You mean like the vague assumption that I do anything like what you just said when I rate a film?
is unipedal the worst reviewer on letterboxd?
>>64360965
if this you >>64360520
then yes
>>64360315
The majority of literally every medium is subpar.
If it wasn't, that would mean that if you picked movies at random, they would average somewhere at 5 stars. That ain't so in reality, because most of the movies filmed are bad, just like the most of the music produced, books written, etc.
What's more interesting, though, is that a person with a curve with more movies rated at 6-10 than 1-5 enjoys the medium more than the person with the opposite (or, say, the "bell"-curve).
If you have too much movies with low ratings then that pretty much means that you watch a shitload of bad movies, whereas the "bad" margin is the one you set for yourself
>>64361106
There is no legitimate method to judge a medium but through comparison which without a doubt will end in a normal distribution there is no arguing that.
In you calling the majority of movie 'bad' just show what a lack of understanding you actually have
>>64361025
It's not. This is an anonymous imageboard you autist.
>>64350765
Was it too long for your ADD, Reddit?
>>64350765
I love her even more for that you filthy pleb
>>64358254
Patrician taste familial
>>64350765
she's my problematic fav
>>64361380
>In you calling the majority of movie 'bad' just show what a lack of understanding you actually have
I'm not even the person from the previous arguments in the thread, but I still haven't seen any counter arguments to this point; you're just screaming "you dumb and don't understand movies". Maybe I don't.
If you want to test the theory yourself, go download 20 random movies, rate them and then check your average score on that list. I don't think it will be at 5 or higher
My New Year's resolutions are to watch less films and completely stop going to the IRC. Bye friends.
>>64361380
>There is no legitimate method to judge a medium but through comparison which without a doubt will end in a normal distribution there is no arguing that.
This is objectively wrong and I've already showed you why you're wrong earlier in the thread so I'm not going to spend time educating a pleb autist about how normal distribution applies to film criticism.
>>64361617
Youre right it probably wouldnt be but if you at my very first post I already talked about that:
>Watching more movies will inherently change your rating criteria as a movie you once thought was better than average turns out to just be average based on your new cumulative criteria. Its a very fluid process that in the end should and will be normative.
Based on my current criteria watching random movies would very likely rate below my current standard for average, but in doing so would create a new average because that would now these random movies would become apart of my fluid rating critera
>>64361832
>ONLY MY CRITERIA IS ONE TRUE CRITERIA
Pleb please go
>>64361785
no you just said the majority of movies are bad which by definition is false, the majority of movies are average
>>64361924
its not my criteria is basic applied statistics that not even what the other guy was arguing he was saying a normal distribution is no applicable in this situation but never gave any evidence why
[The non-normal distribution] exists to exist. The fact that so many people get upset by it, is proof enough of its genius.
-Smoothhands
>>64361935
How do you figure? Are you saying it's easier to make an average movie instead of a bad one? Are you saying there are more filmmakers who have achieved mediocrity at the craft than are just starting out and making bad films while they learn technical processes?
>>64362032
like
>>64340956
Sorry m8 made the mistake of making my profile name my own full name so don't want to share. Here's this though, I know my taste isn't special, but at least it's my own
>>64362128
Old Australian?
>>64361935
You are equivocating between average in terms of total sum and average as a qualitative value judgment. This is why you're retarded.
I watch 100 or so 2015 releases and probably an additional 100 or so other films for the first time.
Trying to figure out if i should get the year off this year with Knight of Cups or Aferim!.
Advice?
>>64362179
Crocodile Dundee? Hey, I was entertained. I was surprised by how nice the first one looked, and I did laugh. I give the second one props because sequels usually bug me but this one held my attention, sort of changed things up. Overall, nice feel good movies, not perfect or thought provoking, but far from bad films
>>64362306
I watched 36 movies this year and it made me hate movies
>>64362075
>>64362233
Its all about comparison. The problem you both have when calling the majority of movies 'bad' is youre taking your very limited sample judgement and not actually considering the total population
>>64362128
Welcome to the club. Hope 2016 is a great year for you.
>>64362618
>comparison
>in a talent-based product
>with no barrier to entry
>muh math
The autism vibes are reading off the charts, cap'n.
>>64337492
2015 ranked:
http://letterboxd.com/jonnybel/list/2015-ranked/detail/
>>64358323
>favorite
>before sunrise
my nigga
>>64362618
If I watch one film that I really really loved and then watched a large number of films that I happened to not like at all, that categorically refutes your retarded hypothesis. What I just described (albeit on a larger scale) is why people who have seen thousands of films can still have a non-normal distribution.
This is just one example of many. You're objectively wrong and you don't understand statistics. You should have stopped posting while you were ahead, now your profile is associated with being a retard who has religious beliefs about mathematical distribution.
>fabs copying tsar's profile pic
lemayo
i finally did 365 movies in 2015, was always so close
only took me 24 years to accomplish it
>your review is a link to your blog
why is this allowed
>>64363162
gz bud now double that and this time next year you might be fit to roll w the big dogs
>>64363162
>>64363967
tru dat. To hang out with the coolest of the coolest of the avant-teens you must dispose of any illusion of a normal life. You wish I was kidding.
http://letterboxd.com/ab/
Rick Alverson desu
>>64364154
hey bae wanna join my site? I might need you to test filmmaker accounts.
cc: [email protected]
>>64364130
weird, youd think you could afford a few hours a day for the hobby youre passionate about. sorry about your 16 hour shifts but maybe you shouldnt have gotten yourself sentenced to a nork labor camp
>>64364154
>"reddit-tier" being used in reviews
>one sentence reviews bitching about a film not following your political views
>The comedy 5 stars
Into the trash
>>64362990
Hating most every movie you watch doesn't mean every movie you watch is the worst movie you've ever seen. Some movies you will hate just a little more some youll hate just a little less, some you hate with a passion, some you may actually enjoy like the first one. It will all lead to a normal distribution albeit one with little deviation.
30% of the movies you've seen are not the worst movies you've ever seen. I know that would imply that you would have to put in a little more thought and nuance into your ratings than you're probably use to, so I would understand if you stopped rating altogether
>>64364154
dont watch entertainment
>>64364298
The Comedy is a 5 star film
What's truly troubling about that profile is that Post Tenebras Lux is in the top 4
>>64364543
I haveit's my favourite film of 2015
>>64364503
>It will all lead to a normal distribution albeit one with little deviation.
This does not follow from the paragraph that preceded it. Furthermore I never said that most every movie that you would watch apart from the few that you do rate five stars are the worst movies you've ever seen, I'm saying that your ridiculous views about what normal distribution is are retarded. There is no universal law preventing someone from having a relatively bottom-heavy spread that dwindles as you approach five stars. The fact that profiles like that exist shows that you are objectively wrong, and the only way you aren't is if you think everyone but you is lying about their rating system, in which case you're still a retard.
>>64364749
Entertainment is literally The Comedy except not good
>>64364798
it's literally not the comedy but still good. existential nihilism senpai
did caden delete his account?
>>64364798
profile like that exist for the same reason that the opposite exists, an inability think beyond extremas
>>64364939
tf he did
>>64365133
>everyone is lying but me
I nominate Smoothhands as the 2016 lbg "everyone shit on him for being a retard" meme user, to join the esteemed ranks of those before him such as Fabs, Healey, and Rostova
>>64364939
>>64365284
He moved to Cinemos
>>64365417
go ahead but nowhere in there did i say anyone was lying
>>64364574
>What's truly troubling about that profile is that Post Tenebras Lux is in the top 4
>>64365494
Reygadas is bargain-bin Malick my plebeian friend, and I'm not even crazy about Malick
>>64365494
yeah nah
>>64365755
only plebs pay attention to rotten tomatoes
Ratings are inherently barbaric. If you use them, I consider you an inferior lifeform with no appreciation for the arts.
>>64365755
>RedditTomatoes
Yikes my friend
>>64365669
what kind of fucking idiot would seriously say this?
>anything spiritualistic is a malick rip off LMAO
fuck off faggot
>>64365834
>>64365980
>le bad site
It's an aggregator of reviews, what's the problem?
>>64366045
>implying I said anything remotely close to anything in your epic memepost
Go to bed Carlos, your films fucking suck
Lower your rating of post tenebras or leave. Those are your two options.
Won't bother replying but Post Tenebras Lux is a suave 7.5.
If you rate it lower you should stick to flicks
>>64366089
It's an aggregator of reviews
>>64366355
:^)
>>64366350
PTL is a flick for people who think they watch films
Are there good movies on Netflix? I mostly use it for TV shows. There's a lot of meme movies. Should I have subbed to Hulu instead for older movies?
2016 is already off to a bad start thanks to these bitches
>>64366230
>>64366089
>>64365669
>>64349935
>>64350447
>>64350765
>>64366588
>I don't agree therefore it's all wrong and tragic
Find your way to Reddit, kiddo. They are very nice there :)
>>64346781
>A Brighter Summer Day on bluray
finally, all the rips i've found to this day were pretty much unwatchable
>>64346781
>>64366707
>tfw after all these years of waiting for a blu-ray, the film in great quality and and the whole kaboom, I go and watch it, only to discover- 4 hours later- that it's a 7/10
Worst feel, t.b.h.
>>64366700
Stop shilling your favorite website here please thanks.
>>64366543
La Sapienza
Phoenix
Jauja
Naqoyqatsi
The Conformist
About Elly
White God
Hard to be A God
Ida
Two Days, One Night
Force Majeure
Like Someone In Love
Stray Dogs
That should be enough to get you on your way.
>>64366543
Sadly they just removed several good movies for the new year (not sure why, guess contract was up). Either way, still some worth checking out.
The Conversation
The Master
City of God
Valhalla Rising
Upstream Color
To The Wonder
The Shining
Nostalghia
Some other good ones, depending on your taste, like Uncle Boonmee and Norte. Also some meme movies like Pulp Fiction and Leon The Professional.
When is Cinemos going online? Have you already made the transition?
>>64366983
April
>>64366857
>>64366978
Thanks a lot lads. I'm on Netflix Canada so I got about a third of what you two suggested but I'll go through the ones I do have access to.
>>64366983
April. I've rated around 20% when I first made my RYM profile.
http://letterboxd.com/Sand/
2016 goal is to not be a pleb.
>>64366588
you must not have read the quality normal distribution discussion
>>64367566
>not be a pleb
>gave Star Wars 4 stars
Yikes. Bad start. I believe in you though.
>>64367566
>2016 goal is to not be a pleb.
>Star Meme 7: four stars
>Sicario: four and a half stars
It's gonna take more than one year to get up from where you're at friend
what happened to vulva guys?
>>64368966
he died :'(
>>64369171
good riddance
>>64366543
Most of Carax's filmography is on Netflix. Hulu has most of the Criterion collection though.
>>64369521
just kiddiiing!!!!!!!!
>>64366543
>Should I have subbed to Hulu instead for older movies?
Yes. There are a couple hundred movies on Hulu worth watching. There's maybe three dozen on Netflix.
