Talk:Cinématon

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the French cinema task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Encyclopedic?

It seems not to be true that a film Cinematon was ever released or shown. The links are only articles about a plan. There are no details about filmlenght in meters, about reels or anything else. Maybe its only a collection of filmreels which are stored anywhere. But this is not one film. There are no testimonials/ external references which shows the truth. This article and all other entries/links should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.162.135 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact THIS is not a film - it is only a collection of films. Nothing else like a filmarchive with a lot of filmrolls - independant from each others. And it´s not getting a film if someone wants to show these rolls each after another! It is possible to call it an art-project - but not worth for an Wiki article. This article is only namedropping - and not checked. - For quality reasons I vote to delete this article! Docjschulz (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of experimental films (such as The Cure for Insomnia and The Longest Most Meaningless Movie in the World) are simply collections of filmrolls. That doesn't disqualify them from being films. Serendi ^pod ous 16:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And it is certainly worthy of a Wiki article. This one has generated considerable media mentions. Dhalgren195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It is not possible that the film was composed from 1978 until 2010 if it also aired in its entirety during 2009.Terwox (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Length?

I notice that over the years the length of this film (according to the article) has been crawling up. In 2009 it was 150 hours long; in 2011, 155 hours; in 2012, 175 hours; in 2013, 186 hours; and now, 188 hours. Just how long is this film, and where can we source that runtime? If it's something that's still actively being made (i.e., previous runtimes represented previous versions, which is suggested by this version of the article, which indicates the vignettes were from as recently as 2012), it would be nice to explain it and have a source (though even if we can't find a source, it would be nice to explain it). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so with a quick check of news sources, it seems that most recent news sources (2009-2012) are calling the film about 150 to 156 hours long. Interestingly, however, it was being screened as early as 1985, when it apparently only 41 hours long. A 2012 article in the British Journal of Aesthetics calls it 150 hours and that it was produced up to 2010. I think barring another source indicating otherwise, the 156-hour number if what we should stick with in this article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the French Wikipedia page, which says the film is 187 hours (no source) and still being added to in 2014. This does not help settle the matter, but if the film is still being added to, it would explain why a length is hard to pin down. On that point: For the purposes of the article it would seem to matter at what length the film is in a released version, so even if the filmmaker tells a journalist that he has added another 10 hours, if that version has not been released then it probably should not be considered an official part of the film until it is released. Regardless, we should go only with numbers that can be sourced, so the 150 or 156 hour length would seem to fit that criteria. 99.192.73.179 (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that makes sense. I agree with sticking to 156 since it seems more precise (it's likely that the 150 is just a round figure that most media outlets are sticking to). I wouldn't object to including a clarifying statement... like that it was 156 hours as of 2012 or something, and also noting that it was being screened as far back as the 1980s when it was only 40 hours (and I do have a source for that). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Few Issues

The only source on the page seems to have a broken link. Are there any other sources out there discussing this film? Additionally, some of the language, such as "each doing whatever they want for the allotted time" does not sound encyclopedic and could definitely be improved JAKGladney (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information

The article says that "It was the longest film ever released until 2011" But the list of longest films by runtime puts it under another film that was apparently released in 2003... — Preceding unsigned comment added by NascentSpace (talk • contribs) 03:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]