Just isn't number 1...
It's number 2!! number 00000002 actually... =)
yeah i know... it's stupid, but hey, I'm bored ;-P
It almost made it though.
I was just at number 0000001, and am following it up. This must be the second oldest film ever then?
But my lips hurt real bad!
Doesn't make sense either considering this one's made in in 1892 and #1 is made in 1894
shareIt is not. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0000001/ is not the oldest one either.
sharehey people!!!
sharewell i was so excited to look for number 00000001 and 00000002..
but to find out they are in fact not the oldest films ever made, i am a little bit dissapointed and also curious: can you inform me what the name of the 1st movie ever made is??
I think it may be this film...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundhay_Garden_Scene.
If anyone finds something different, please tell.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The oldest film is the oldest surviving film.
Roundhay Garden Scene
look up on YouTube
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=23949572 - My vote history (>6000 titles)
The number 2 in this title internet address has nothing to do with it being the oldest, it just mean it was the second added to the Database.
As armoreska said today Roundhay Garden Scene wich you can see at Youtube is considered the first film in history, altought there were five movies filmed in 1888 so if it was actually the first one to be filmed is something we can't be sure off and any of those years pictures can claim that title.
If you search pictures for years in the database you'll also find a picture as old as 1880, Sallie Gardner at a Gallop, while oldest that is not considered the first film because the creator didn't capture movement, he just took a series of continuos images with different photographic cameras. He never saw those images in movement and they were animated years later, you can also watch that movie in different video sites in the web.
I want the daily poll at the IMDB.
How is it that the creator (Eadweard Muybridge) of "Sallie Gardner at a Gallop" "didn't capture movement", as you say? Of course he captured movement--that's what made the pictures such a landmark. Whether someone considers it a film, movie, motion picture or whatever depends on how they define those terms.
You also said, "He never saw those images in movement and they were animated years later". Muybridge himself "animated" those images--projecting them with a his own device to audiences across the U.S. and Europe beginning in 1880. There's, indeed, been some disagreement or confusion on whether these projected images were drawings and/or photographs.
There is little to no evidence, however, that any of those 1888 films so far listed on IMDb were ever screened in their day.
As to the topic of the first film, I think it's a much more difficult question than those who claim "Roundhay Garden Scene" make it out to be--just as it was for those who used to make such claims on behalf of Thomas Edison.