How many movies should one watch to be considered experienced?

How many movies should one watch to be considered experienced?

Other urls found in this thread:

bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

This show fucking sucked in its second half

1

Madagascar 2.

By the age of 20 you should have seen at least 3000 which does not include the movies you watch as a child(18under the age of I'd say 18)

>at least 3000
That means you would have to watch at least one movie every day for 8 years

Probably about 1,500? At that point I'd wager you'll have seen at least 3 times more than the average person and you should be pretty well versed.

ONE.

200.

>tfw I'm 24 yrs old and I'm only at 1,652.

139 for this year so far. I guess I'm doing alright. I'm trying to watch at least 365 movies a year but I don't think I'll hit 365. I started out strong in January and February but hit the wall early on.

About 2 to 3 thousand pure kinos with zero plebbery mixed in.
Bare minimum to start.

Inland Empire, right?

THE "ORIGINAL POSTER" ASKED HOW MANY "MOVIES", NOT WHAT "MOVIE"; IT IS IRRELEVANT WHAT "MOVIE" IS WATCHED; ONE SUFFICES; THE MOMENT AFTER ONE WATCHES A "MOVIE", ONE HAS CONSUMMATED THE EXPERIENCE, THEREFORE ONE IS EXPERIENCED.

greatest love story ever told.

You know what he was getting at by "experienced" though. Not just, "having experienced".

10,000 hours of anything is enough to make you an expert in anything.

THE CORRECT WORD WOULD HAVE BEEN "SAVVY", OR "KNOWLEDGEABLE".

>being pedantic
>being wrong
choose two.

He's autistic. Pedantry is a predominant trait of High Functioning Autism/Asperger Syndrome. Be understanding.

He's not wrong though.

You can be considered experienced in a field, such as film. In this case, the OP dropped the "in film" part of "be considered experienced in film." It's fine, pedantry or no, to drop that part because it's assumed.

If we're being pedantic, he's still right though. To be experienced in anything you only need one act/iteration/cycle. "Experience" simply means "knowledge by trial" or "tested out". The word itself doesn't have any connotation of quantity beyond the colloquial sense.

1000.

yes

To be experienced implies a level of expertise.

Not necessarily. The other way around actually: expertise implies experience.

That's simply not how the phrase is used. If you are experienced in aquatic mammals, it doesn't mean that you have only seen one aquatic animal. It means that you have seen enough to develop an expertise. If you are experienced in film, you have seen enough films to develop an expertise. To HAVE experienced a thing is not to BE experienced in the thing.

I don't think you grasp basic concepts of semantics...

Experienced
adjective
1.
wise or skillful in a particular field through experience :
an experienced teacher.
2.
having learned through experience; taught by experience :
experienced through adversity.
3.
endured; undergone; suffered through:
experienced misfortunes.


When people say that they are experienced, they mean the first definition here. Wise or skillful in a field through experience.

Again, that's just the colloquial sense, not the literal sense.

>Definition of the word according to every dictionary
>Not the literal sense
lol ok

Learn to etymology, buddie-O.

I mean, basically the original pedantic guy thought that the adjective and the verb form of the word meant the same thing, which caused his confusion. They actually mean different things. It's not a matter of etymology, it's a matter of grammar.

The OP was simply using the adjective form and you guys haven't picked up on that yet.

over 9000 :DDD

The OP is using it in the colloquial sense, not in the literal sense. He actually means "knowledgeable", "savvy", "an expert", etc. The autist was technically correct in taking the word "experienced" literally as meaning "having tested by trial", because that's what the word means.

What don't you understand?

Also, you don't know what grammar is.

This sounds pretty reasonable to me. I've seen about 1100 movies and I still feel pretty ignorant. As many classics and important movies as I've watched, I still feel like I'm missing out on enough that I can't call myself an expert on cinema. If you manage to get up to 1500 though you'll probably have seen enough of them to be pretty credible as an expert.

>keeping count
true sign of a pleb

watching kinos isn't mean to be an errand, a chore or a checklist.

You're not keeping score you pleb

I only started counting last year. Took me a long time to count them all up, and I know I'm still missing a few that I can't recall the titles of or ones I watched when I was younger.

>I've watched 1100 movies in a year
yeah, I'm sure.

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. It's confusing the adjective form of the word with the verb form of the word. They are simply two different forms. To be experienced (adj) makes grammatical sense. To be experienced (verb) does not make grammatical sense. To be is a verb already. This would be like saying "to be ran" or "to be swam." You have to misconstrue the sentence in order to read it the way you are reading it.

Are you stupid? I said I only started counting last year, not that I watched 1100 movies in a year. Jesus is everybody on this board at a 5th grade reading level?

itt foreveralone virgins

it's not movies it's sex that makes you experienced, faggots

>implying you remember 1100 movies
you old senile fuck probably can't even remember the 2nd last movie you watch

Did you miss the part where I said it took me a long time to count them all up? I swear you have the reading comprehension of a 11 year old. No shit I can't recall 1100 movies from memory, I had to trawl through lists on letterboxd to jog my memory, took like a month before I found every title I could remember.

You're getting real defensive dude, calm down.

Quality > Quantity

You could watch 10,000 films and still know nothing about film and film history.

So first you start insulting me for no reason, now you say I'm defensive for calling you a moron for not being able to read my posts?

Sounds like the justification of somebody who barely watches movies and pretends like he's an expert.

sorry friend, I'm just shitposting.

No, I just can't take seriously people who haven't seen all the classics. There are guys on letterboxd with 3000+ films watched but most of them are from 1990-2016. Meanwhile they haven't seen anything by Griffith or von Stroheim.

>watching films to brag about film history expertise not to enjoy watching films

You're an expert in movies if you've watched 10000 hours of movies.
Even if you've just seen Ishtar 5708 times.

bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time

This is the absolute minimum for anyone who considers himself a film fan.

>all the classics
Is that even possible

Well, at least it wasn't "1. Citizen Kane"

see

>vertigo belongs in a top 50 let alone at no 1
no

>watching movies because they're in a list not because they're the kind of movies you enjoy watching

>pretending to like film from an era you will never understand and be able to appreciate

this is why I hate nu-males, as if they can understand deceptions of a time they have no connection too, all good film ages and loses it's power as time goes on

I'm a historian, I love older movies. They are like beautiful old artifacts.

he's the typical nu-male, he will watch any film he can find on a list as long as it isn't too popular, because he's special like that

I feel like I understand the language of cinema, the geometry of cinematography and the architecture of narrative without ever having seen John Ford or Francois Truffaut. It's about your power of observation and I think I'm just better at it than most people.

>does not take seriously people who do not watch the same films as he does

which is why you're a foreveralonevirgin living in your mom's basement

>watching films to "enjoy" them
This isn't Sup Forums kiddo

You're in an actual art medium now

>implying being pretentious is a sign of maturity

kek
stop pretending, little boy

Film loses some power over time, sure, but there are still films you can easily connect to even from the '20s. Tastes, values, and technology changes over time, but stories tend to have a more universal quality that lets you look beyond all of the things which have changed. It's why we still read books from the 1800s. Things don't lose as much value as you think they do.

shitposting aside, i think this is a tough question. i've talked to people who do a lot of something, but don't seem to retain much. one person in particular comes to mind. he would get very excited about something, delve into it, spend a ton of money amassing a collection, burn through it all very quickly and he could barely remember a book/film/series we'd discussed a month ago. so i don't know how relevant experience is if you just mean someone who has seen a lot of films. this isn't to say that experience doesn't matter at all, of course.

When you turn into something like this you can call yourself "experienced".

name ONE movie

At least watch the top 50 from Sight & Sound poll, so you can learn something about film.

589 bajillion

bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time
start with these

It depends if you're 'serious' about cinema or it's just a hobby. For most people it's the latter, and that's okay. Counting or remembering or keeping a register don't matter for them.
But if not, then it's a good couple of thousands until you are minimally up on the whole.

You don't watch a movie every day?

Why are you on THIS board?

You can actually become an expert at fucking movies by watching 3000 of em? By that logic I must be a fucking overgod pope of video games cause I sure as fuck have played a lifetime of them.

only one lifetime? pleb.

videogame expertise is regressive, the more you play, the less you know. cuck.

1000-1500, considering they're all of different genres and eras

That is ok, but you MUST watch 400 blows -- a masterpiece.

post top 10?

>not keeping a list

>By the age of 20 you should have seen at least 3000 which does not include the movies you watch as a child(18under the age of I'd say 18)
>does not include movies you watch under 18
>by the age of 20 and from 18-20 you should have watched 3000 films in 2 years.
Nice shitposting

The answer is 2K. If you havent seen at least 2K films in your life being younger than 30 you should fuck

Might as well keep them in fucking hieroglyphics you fucking poseur anti-artist

I starting making a list once, but its too long. No point. Plus a list is autistic as are you

what does that even mean my dude

You exemplify the pretentious shit taste on this board coupled with serious autism.

>caring about films is autism

i'm not sure what you think you can know about my taste based on a few dozen films i've watched. i haven't told you what i thought of any of them.

such kino list, what do you think of mine?

I was implying autism was those with lists claiming those without lists are wrong

post top 10

Just learn the word kino and you'll be fine.

oh, you thought the font was difficult to read. well luckily i don't. maybe you need glasses.

See this is what im talking about

autists want lists

...

rude

>getting triggered over someone else's lists
You're the only autist here. I mean, you probably just spent more time getting mad over it than it took the user to write the lists

>BFI

You don't need to look at anything outside of America, OP.

>he doesn't find his movies purely through psychic divination, what a douche bag
I don't get this meme.

American movies are trash though

>someone keeps lists and shows an example of them
>gets desperate accusations of autism
>gets calls of pretentious(???)
Well, it shows the level of the trash who's majority on this board

>he's still mad
calm down retard