Letterboxd

[Lakigigar]

Yes i think people overdramatize it, letterboxd is vastly superior to IMDb. If you don't like the reviews, ignore them and letterboxd wins it on all aspects from IMDb (except maybe the database it uses).

[TraverseTown]

I will never hold the short reviews against people because: A.) Letterboxd promotes itself as a film diary where you can use the site to keep track of the films you watch, when you watch them, and your comments within those diary entries. And B.) there's no option to make your Letterboxd private or accessible to only friends. Everything you do is public with the exception of private lists. So I'll forgive anyone whose reviews don't match my style preference.

And it's a social media platform, after all, you'll find clout chasing low-hanging fruit grabbers on literally any social media platform, this one just makes them harder to filter out.

[tobias]

Yes i think people overdramatize it, letterboxd is vastly superior to IMDb. If you don't like the reviews, ignore them and letterboxd wins it on all aspects from IMDb (except maybe the database it uses).

IMDB's database is really way superior, especially the advanced search function.

[Onderhond]

Don't think I've seen this mentioned here before, but ICM is listed as an import source on Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/about/importing-data/
That means you can simply export an ICM list, and use the CSV file directly to create a LB list.

Nice!

[DareDaniel]

Short reviews are fine but most of the popular one are always very generic and unfunny. I also blame the users who like popular shit reviews because everyone else is doing the same, I guess most of them are still teens who are developing their personality. It dumbs down the site as a social network. As a database to explore movies, lb is a much better experience than imdb.

[Lakigigar]

Yes i think people overdramatize it, letterboxd is vastly superior to IMDb. If you don't like the reviews, ignore them and letterboxd wins it on all aspects from IMDb (except maybe the database it uses).

IMDB's database is really way superior, especially the advanced search function.

Perhaps, but I do think the filter options on letterboxd are more easier to use, while IMDb's advanced search often is kind of a mess.

[Fergenaprido]

Don't think I've seen this mentioned here before, but ICM is listed as an import source on Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/about/importing-data/
That means you can simply export an ICM list, and use the CSV file directly to create a LB list.

Nice!

That's amazing!

I wonder what it does if a film is not already in the database... might give that a go as there are a number of films and shorts I've seen that are logged on imdb and icm, but not tmdb and lb.

Yes i think people overdramatize it, letterboxd is vastly superior to IMDb. If you don't like the reviews, ignore them and letterboxd wins it on all aspects from IMDb (except maybe the database it uses).

IMDB's database is really way superior, especially the advanced search function.

Perhaps, but I do think the filter options on letterboxd are more easier to use, while IMDb's advanced search often is kind of a mess.

IMDB's advanced search is excellent, as it allows you to filter based on various criteria. My own gripe is that you can't do OR searches for countries and languages, only AND searches (i.e. films from Fiji OR Samoa). I've largely ignored the search and filter options on Letterboxd because they're rather basic and useless, unless they've upgraded them in the past few years and I didn't notice. All I use is the one where it fades the films you've already seen in a list. I do like that one.

[Onderhond]

I wonder what it does if a film is not already in the database... might give that a go as there are a number of films and shorts I've seen that are logged on imdb and icm, but not tmdb and lb.

After importing you get an overview of the list (with notifications for the films it didn't find. It's pretty clean.

[Torgo]

letterboxd wins it on all aspects from IMDb (except maybe the database it uses).

MAYBE, what the hell. Maybe! This is maybe the most absurd statement one could come up with on a Forum for a website that LITERALLY assembles LISTS of thousands and tens of thousands of films. Good luck researching them with LB.

Which brings me to my point .. can you really not search for films with the most logs / ratings on LB, only for "most popular"? Perhaps I'm overlooking something, or it's not available for non-premium users. If it indeed doesn't exist: meh.

[Torgo]

So the most Letterboxd thing I've stumbled upon today is...
Mean Girls having a 3.8 rating and nearing 1 million logs

[Lakigigar]

letterboxd wins it on all aspects from IMDb (except maybe the database it uses).

MAYBE, what the hell. Maybe! This is maybe the most absurd statement one could come up with on a Forum for a website that LITERALLY assembles LISTS of thousands and tens of thousands of films. Good luck researching them with LB.

Which brings me to my point .. can you really not search for films with the most logs / ratings on LB, only for "most popular"? Perhaps I'm overlooking something, or it's not available for non-premium users. If it indeed doesn't exist: meh.

at least you're able too... Do you know how infuriating it is to create a list on IMDb or look one for one??? I don't know why you would want to see the most rated films because that really isn't an indication... Most popular seem to do the job sort of too? I don't think most watched is really that relevant. I am not called everyone.

https://letterboxd.com/victorvdb/list/l ... es-of-all/

But here you go, someone made a list of that (and what is less watched really isn't relevant in terms of most watched), and most popular sort of does the job too.

It has great filter options and it is easier to use than "advanced search function of IMDb" and often you get what you want in a nutshell. If i want to see all films directed by actor X i get what i want with a 1 second search. Maybe open letterboxd type actor, click on actor and i've got it. I see the films he stars in it and i see how many i've seen. For IMDb it is sort of annoying to look that up, and i hate the overview.

So the most Letterboxd thing I've stumbled upon today is...
Mean Girls having a 3.8 rating and nearing 1 million logs

Still underrated...

[jal90]

letterboxd wins it on all aspects from IMDb (except maybe the database it uses).

MAYBE, what the hell. Maybe! This is maybe the most absurd statement one could come up with on a Forum for a website that LITERALLY assembles LISTS of thousands and tens of thousands of films. Good luck researching them with LB.

Which brings me to my point .. can you really not search for films with the most logs / ratings on LB, only for "most popular"? Perhaps I'm overlooking something, or it's not available for non-premium users. If it indeed doesn't exist: meh.

at least you're able too... Do you know how infuriating it is to create a list on IMDb or look one for one??? I don't know why you would want to see the most rated films because that really isn't an indication... Most popular seem to do the job sort of too? I don't think most watched is really that relevant. I am not called everyone.

https://letterboxd.com/victorvdb/list/l ... es-of-all/

But here you go, someone made a list of that (and what is less watched really isn't relevant in terms of most watched), and most popular sort of does the job too.

It has great filter options and it is easier to use than "advanced search function of IMDb" and often you get what you want in a nutshell. If i want to see all films directed by actor X i get what i want with a 1 second search. Maybe open letterboxd type actor, click on actor and i've got it. I see the films he stars in it and i see how many i've seen. For IMDb it is sort of annoying to look that up, and i hate the overview.

I know how infuriating it is to create a list on IMDb and look for one. And I know how infuriating it is to create a list on Letterboxd and look for one. We are not exactly talking about a top feature in either. Particularly on the matter of editing and reordering, IMDb is already terrible but Letterboxd is criminal. A number of people have left big list projects unfinished because it's really unfeasible. Say that you have 1000 items on a list, like your top1000. Which do you think is easier to edit? I can assure you that IMDb showing only a limited number of films per page may be equally laborious, but is way much less of a pain in the ass than Letterboxd's absurd trend to cram everything in the same page.

If we are talking about Letterboxd features that I actually find better than IMDb, then first comes the social aspect (IMDb is pretty much dead in that regard), second comes the accessibility of the filters (specially in the app) and the third would be the use of tabs to make information like for example celebrity profiles more fluid and accessible. Lists? They look great but try making one. Database? Doesn't even begin to compare.

Also more or less related but the search function of IMDb is also much better than Letterboxd from the very moment it shows valid results even if you happen to write a typo.

[Lakigigar]

But why would one create a list of 1000+ films, and even rank them or sort them? I don't know what the purpose of it is. You're also able to import a list, and you're also able to just add films based on the ranking you have (the film on 1 first, the film on 2, second). Edits perhaps are more annoying, especially on mobile, but it is far superior to IMDb (listmaking) and as a whole too. Yes, the database is better on IMDb and for me it is the only thing that is better. Creating a list on IMDb simply is not do-able.

[jal90]

But why would one create a list of 1000+ films, and even rank them or sort them? I don't know what the purpose of it is. You're also able to import a list, and you're also able to just add films based on the ranking you have (the film on 1 first, the film on 2, second). Edits perhaps are more annoying, especially on mobile, but it is far superior to IMDb (listmaking) and as a whole too. Yes, the database is better on IMDb and for me it is the only thing that is better. Creating a list on IMDb simply is not do-able.

A number of possible reasons:

-Making your top1000+, like some users here who consistently watch 100 films a month can and like to do.
-Creating Doubling the Canon.
-Adapting other lists and canons into your own list.
-Aggregating stuff for whatever reason focused on a theme or a common element.

Add your own. It's really not a defense of Letterboxd's terrible editing tools that you can't think of a reason why people would create long lists. The issue is that they can so the website should make things easier for them.

[OldAle1]

But why would one create a list of 1000+ films, and even rank them or sort them? I don't know what the purpose of it is. You're also able to import a list, and you're also able to just add films based on the ranking you have (the film on 1 first, the film on 2, second). Edits perhaps are more annoying, especially on mobile, but it is far superior to IMDb (listmaking) and as a whole too. Yes, the database is better on IMDb and for me it is the only thing that is better. Creating a list on IMDb simply is not do-able.

A number of possible reasons:

-Making your top1000+, like some users here who consistently watch 100 films a month can and like to do.
-Creating Doubling the Canon.
-Adapting other lists and canons into your own list.
-Aggregating stuff for whatever reason focused on a theme or a common element.

Add your own. It's really not a defense of Letterboxd's terrible editing tools that you can't think of a reason why people would create long lists. The issue is that they can so the website should make things easier for them.

Especially given that, unlike IMDb, it isn't a 30-year old website that has thrown away it's social media aspects and couldn't care less about what most of it's (non-paying) userbase thinks. It's entirely understandable that IMDb is hard to use or irritating in many ways; Letterboxd is supposed to be different - why else does it even exist?

[Fergenaprido]

But why would one create a list of 1000+ films, and even rank them or sort them? I don't know what the purpose of it is. You're also able to import a list, and you're also able to just add films based on the ranking you have (the film on 1 first, the film on 2, second). Edits perhaps are more annoying, especially on mobile, but it is far superior to IMDb (listmaking) and as a whole too. Yes, the database is better on IMDb and for me it is the only thing that is better. Creating a list on IMDb simply is not do-able.

I'm surprised you have to ask this question on a forum where people are borderline obsessed about making lists Imagine trying to create a list of the results for a poll on LB vs IMDB. I'm 99% sure it would be easier to do on imdb, even if you didn't use the list-helper script (which is SUPER useful and makes list-making on imdb much faster if you're copying a list of titles or IDs from elsewhere). And if you're able to import a list to letterboxd, where are you going to import it from? Most likely IMDB. If you're serious about list-making, even for shorter lists of 100-250 titles, I would highly recommend installing the listhelper script. If you like LB better, that's fine, you can always create the list in imdb and import it to LB.

And unrelated, but the English word for "do-able" is feasible.

[mightysparks]

I order all my lists in word (with titles and urls) import to IMDb or icm and then export to Letterboxd. I don’t like the list making on any of the sites.

[Onderhond]

For me the different between IMDb and Letterboxd (re: list management) is night & day. I'm not using any external scripts, so I'm comparing the core experiences on both sides.

I wonder what problems people have with Letterboxd's methods. It's fast and snappy on my end. Drag & drop works fine + the numbers are there for precise/quick ranking. I guess the ICM way of adding a new film is better compared to Letterboxd? Not sure what I'd be able to add to make it any better.

[Teproc]

I don't think LB's list creating/editing process is particularly good, but I'm honestly shocked anyone would find IMDB's better. Then again, I don't have any special scripts, so maybe that's what making the difference, but having to use IMDB for the Directors poll is a pain.

[Onderhond]

The way I see it:

IMDb:
- No import options ?
- Good search but crappy visualization (just a dropdown box with title + year)
- Paging per 100 titles
- No drag and drop
- Slow, like the rest of the site
- Info & list in same form (easy)

ICM:
- Great import options
- Search is crap (worse than the site search, which is better)
- Drag & drop only, making it very hard to make big ranking changes
- Great selection mechanism where it's easy to add a new film in the exact position right away
- Slow, like the rest of the site
- Site stability can be a problem, with random errors while saving
- Info & list are different forms (annoying)

LB:
- Great import options
- Search is great, good visualization (includes director + alt titles)
- Drag & Drop + numeric sort supported
- Films are always added at the end, which isn't great
- Fast, like the rest of the site
- Never experienced any stability problems.
- Info & list in same form (easy)

Just wondering what exactly people are missing from LB/what routines they use on other sites that LB doesn't support (well).

[mightysparks]

LB would be improved massively if we could have the icm 'selection mechanism' and also if the search would read the entire IMDb URL and not just the 'tt' bit. The main reason I wouldn't use LB to make a list though is that I can't export it with the IMDb URL to use in anything useful or import to another site.

[Onderhond]

LB would be improved massively if we could have the icm 'selection mechanism' and also if the search would read the entire IMDb URL and not just the 'tt' bit. The main reason I wouldn't use LB to make a list though is that I can't export it with the IMDb URL to use in anything useful or import to another site.

I do agree the ICM selection interface is better, though the impact isn't that big for me. It's only truly useful when adding films to an existing list (doesn't come into play with import or when manually adding, and I do assume most people with add films in order anyway) and the "rank with number" option on LB makes it just 1 simple step extra. As for searching on tt, hadn't even realized that was an option

I do agree it sucks that you can't export lists on LB, but that's a secondary functionality that isn't really related to list creation

[jal90]

I don't know how can drag & drop be considered better, specially in large lists. Scrolling through hundreds of films with a selected entry? It's "faster" but it's also impractical, imprecise and in the end makes the ordering slower because you are bound to commit mistakes all the time.

And not to mention the loading time or the eternal scrolling up and down. Though the latter is a personal issue of mine: anything that implies massive scrolling as a way of functioning is my sworn enemy.

Anyway, as said, both are pretty awful sites for editing and sorting lists. Being only slightly better than the other is not a compliment.

[Onderhond]

I don't know how can drag & drop be considered better, specially in large lists. Scrolling through hundreds of films with a selected entry? It's "faster" but it's also impractical, imprecise and in the end makes the ordering slower because you are bound to commit mistakes all the time.

It isn't considered better for big changes, it's horrible in fact, certainly not faster either. That's why you can also use the number ranking IMDb uses. Best of both worlds.

And not to mention the loading time or the eternal scrolling up and down. Though the latter is a personal issue of mine: anything that implies massive scrolling as a way of functioning is my sworn enemy.

It's the fastest of the three on my machine. And one of the basic UX mantras is that "people don't mind scrolling", so that's probably a personal quirk.
Could help to get one of those mice with a wheel, makes scrolling that much easier.

The problem is that dealing with a 1000 entries is always going to involve compromises, there's only so much you do on a single screen. There are things that LB could still improve, but they would only be marginal gains I think, nothing substantial.

[mjf314]

Someone should make a webpage that lets you easily reorder a list, where you can choose between several different ordering methods, then after you're done you can copy the list back to iCM or Letterboxd.

I'm tempted to do it myself, but it would probably take a lot of work to make something that's easy to use, so I'm not sure if I really want to do it.

[jal90]

It's the fastest of the three on my machine. And one of the basic UX mantras is that "people don't mind scrolling", so that's probably a personal quirk.
Could help to get one of those mice with a wheel, makes scrolling that much easier.

I have one, though. It never works as well as I'd need it to. But in general, it's just the philosophy behind. It's like everything has to be a Facebook or Twitter timeline these days. No matter how much content ends up being crammed in one page and how much navigation is slowed down. My sworn enemy indeed.

[Onderhond]

It's the fastest of the three on my machine. And one of the basic UX mantras is that "people don't mind scrolling", so that's probably a personal quirk.
Could help to get one of those mice with a wheel, makes scrolling that much easier.

I have one, though. It never works as well as I'd need it to. But in general, it's just the philosophy behind. It's like everything has to be a Facebook or Twitter timeline these days. No matter how much content ends up being crammed in one page and how much navigation is slowed down. My sworn enemy indeed.

Oh, but when it's about lists that endlessly keep loading content then we agree. I don't like them either. I think a list of 1000 films is different, since a 1000 is just a lot, and dividing it into smaller chunks introduces way more problems than it solves.

One negative I will add about LB lists is that you can't really clear them. If I'm not mistaken, a new import will add films but won't reorder the current list, and there's no "remove all films from list" button, only a "remove list". Which really sucks when I redo my Top 700-something every year.

[Lakigigar]

The way I see it:

IMDb:
- No import options ?
- Good search but crappy visualization (just a dropdown box with title + year)
- Paging per 100 titles
- No drag and drop
- Slow, like the rest of the site
- Info & list in same form (easy)

ICM:
- Great import options
- Search is crap (worse than the site search, which is better)
- Drag & drop only, making it very hard to make big ranking changes
- Great selection mechanism where it's easy to add a new film in the exact position right away
- Slow, like the rest of the site
- Site stability can be a problem, with random errors while saving
- Info & list are different forms (annoying)

LB:
- Great import options
- Search is great, good visualization (includes director + alt titles)
- Drag & Drop + numeric sort supported
- Films are always added at the end, which isn't great
- Fast, like the rest of the site
- Never experienced any stability problems.
- Info & list in same form (easy)

Just wondering what exactly people are missing from LB/what routines they use on other sites that LB doesn't support (well).

I experience it the same way, yes.

It was one of the reasons ICM actually. On LB i have a top 250 and i have never encountered issues making edits (for ICM it often doesn't want to do something if you click on something, if you check something, if you put something on your watchlist, if you look something to add to your list, it's quite annoying). And IMDb is horrible for listmaking because it doesn't have drag & drop. Searching film titles on ICM was often annoying too, literally typing a film's name correctly and not having it in the first 50 options is annoying, if you can't find it you have type the director instead.

I didn't know LB had numeric sort?

[hurluberlu]

The way I see it:

IMDb:
- No import options ?
- Good search but crappy visualization (just a dropdown box with title + year)
- Paging per 100 titles
- No drag and drop
- Slow, like the rest of the site
- Info & list in same form (easy)

You can chose whether you want to get search results compact (year+title) or detailed, and how many titles you want to see in display (50/100/250).
There is drag and drop. Just click on the small arrow next to Add to watch list on the film main page and you can drop it to whatever list you have or a new one.

Not that IMDb was ever great but I seems to me younger crowds have decided that letterbox was the next best thing and put IMDb to trash while the differences are really optical and minor.

[Onderhond]

You can chose whether you want to get search results compact (year+title) or detailed, and how many titles you want to see in display (50/100/250).
There is drag and drop. Just click on the small arrow next to Add to watch list on the film main page and you can drop it to whatever list you have or a new one.

I'm talking about the list edit screen.

[Fergenaprido]

The way I see it:

IMDb:
- No import options ?
- Good search but crappy visualization (just a dropdown box with title + year)
- Paging per 100 titles
- No drag and drop
- Slow, like the rest of the site
- Info & list in same form (easy)

You can chose whether you want to get search results compact (year+title) or detailed, and how many titles you want to see in display (50/100/250).
There is drag and drop. Just click on the small arrow next to Add to watch list on the film main page and you can drop it to whatever list you have or a new one.

Not that IMDb was ever great but I seems to me younger crowds have decided that letterbox was the next best thing and put IMDb to trash while the differences are really optical and minor.

I think by "drag and drop" people are referring to selecting a film when editing a list, "dragging" it to a new position, and "dropping" it there. That's different from what you mention, which just adds the title to the end of the list that you've selected from that drop-down list.

[Onderhond]

That too. Also, I hope nobody is planning to make his top 1000 by visiting every single detail page on IMDb.

[Torgo]

The way I see it:

IMDb:
- No import options ?
- Good search but crappy visualization (just a dropdown box with title + year)
- Paging per 100 titles
- No drag and drop
- Slow, like the rest of the site
- Info & list in same form (easy)

You can chose whether you want to get search results compact (year+title) or detailed, and how many titles you want to see in display (50/100/250).
There is drag and drop. Just click on the small arrow next to Add to watch list on the film main page and you can drop it to whatever list you have or a new one.

Not that IMDb was ever great but I seems to me younger crowds have decided that letterbox was the next best thing and put IMDb to trash while the differences are really optical and minor.

I think by "drag and drop" people are referring to selecting a film when editing a list, "dragging" it to a new position, and "dropping" it there. That's different from what you mention, which just adds the title to the end of the list that you've selected from that drop-down list.

Funniest thing about that is that they DID have Drag & Drop for years but decided to remove it because, well, because fuck you, we guess?!

[hurluberlu]

That too. Also, I hope nobody is planning to make his top 1000 by visiting every single detail page on IMDb.

Ok but you are not going to reorder a list of 1000 with drag and drop either, this is where scripts for IMDb are useful.

[Minkin]

I just discovered tags and its suddenly like my favorite part of the website. I can keep track of so much information using them!

So far I'm keeping track of the safari location, what drug we were on whilst watching, whether we had popcorn, watched on MST3K / Rifftrax / Svengoolie. And will probably put my diagnosis for whatever character in the movie.

The one problem is that - when you click on a tag, you can't sort the tagged films by when you watched them, which is an oversight. But I'm glad you can sort by several other metrics.

But it sorta defeats the purpose of making a list - as you can just tag it and then sort by all the different metrics that way and besides its a lot easier to navigate than Letterboxd lists. Though I will say the ability to add notes to an entry is a huge plus for Letterboxd lists over ICM.

What things do the rest of you tag?

[Fergenaprido]

I just discovered tags and its suddenly like my favorite part of the website. I can keep track of so much information using them!

So far I'm keeping track of the safari location, what drug we were on whilst watching, whether we had popcorn, watched on MST3K / Rifftrax / Svengoolie. And will probably put my diagnosis for whatever character in the movie.

The one problem is that - when you click on a tag, you can't sort the tagged films by when you watched them, which is an oversight. But I'm glad you can sort by several other metrics.

But it sorta defeats the purpose of making a list - as you can just tag it and then sort by all the different metrics that way and besides its a lot easier to navigate than Letterboxd lists. Though I will say the ability to add notes to an entry is a huge plus for Letterboxd lists over ICM.

What things do the rest of you tag?

I tag where/how I watched it (cinema, netflix, etc.). Most of it I didn't track until I started using LB and saw their suggested tags.

You can sort the tagged films if you log them and not just rate them. Click on a tag, and by default it should take you to a grid of the films, ordered by film popularity. On that page you can also sort by Title, Release Date, Your Rating, Average Rating, and Film Length. If you click on "Diary" between "Films" and "Reviews" at the top left, it will list them in reverse chronological order, and give you a few more options for sorting.

[sol]

Anybody ever had issues with their Letterboxd stats not updating? Or taking an inordinately long time to update?

15 minutes ago I logged Kill Bill 2 -- my 98th viewing for the year -- but it's not showing up in my stats: https://letterboxd.com/solh/year/2022/

[sol]

FIXED

I don't know if it's just coincidence or not, but I left a comment on someone else's review and then hey presto, my stats updated.

[Fergenaprido]

I haven't had that issue, no. I usually log my watches on LB in batches, and go to the stats page right after, and everything is always already there.

[Minkin]

You can sort the tagged films if you log them and not just rate them. Click on a tag, and by default it should take you to a grid of the films, ordered by film popularity. On that page you can also sort by Title, Release Date, Your Rating, Average Rating, and Film Length. If you click on "Diary" between "Films" and "Reviews" at the top left, it will list them in reverse chronological order, and give you a few more options for sorting.

This is exactly what I was looking for! I overlooked it somehow, so thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I am curious what other features of the website I have yet to explore, as the tags turned out to be a great discovery that I'm finding new ways to utilize.


+ add me to the list of people who don't understand why most reviews get likes. Sure, I can understand the meme ones, even if they're almost always unfunny, but then there's stuff like this that gets 10 likes and I don't get it (I guess its who you know, not what you know):

Another fantastic work of art, story didn’t interest me as much as My Neighbour Totoro for some reason, not really sure why but still enjoyed it nonetheless.

I'm still up in the air about whether I want to pay for Pro, as the yearly recap stats sound interesting, but I'm not sure if its really something I need to pay for - just for it to tell me that I watch a lot of Larry Blamire. Do the stats apply retroactively - like can you see your stats for 2019, if you signed up for pro in 2022?