criterionforum.org

IMDb's filmographies has a new layout. Before, the filmographies were clean, clear, logical. Now they are cluttered and have to be expanded to see all the films for each listing. The IMDb's filmographies are an invaluable resource but in this format they are time consuming.

Luckily, you can choose to view the previous display by going HERE and ticking
"Show previous title and name page design (reference view)". But the old layout will no doubt be phased out altogether eventually.

Is this something they're only trying out on select members for now? Because I'm getting the same layout and design as always, regardless of whether I have that box checked in my preferences.

Kirkinson wrote:Is this something they're only trying out on select members for now? Because I'm getting the same layout and design as always, regardless of whether I have that box checked in my preferences.

I've had it coming and going to the last couple days. Here are a couple grabs of the new layout:

Wow, that's hideous.

Yeah, it is awful.

I've got the old version again today.

My first reaction was that the new look is atrocious, as well, but it grew on me after a few minutes. Now I think it's actually an improvement, especially on the film pages themselves.

Or maybe you guys were simply talking about Oliver's picture. That's my bad - I simply grabbed the first page I got to, as Wall Street was the first link I saw on the front page.

I took an instant dislike to it, but after thinking about it for awhile I can kind of see the logic. You do a search for, say, Oliver Stone & get the list of possibilities & the first thing up is the mini-bio.
If you're not a film geek (or you're at the wannabe stage) this is a useful first page. For those of us who are film geeks (and isn't that like, I dunno, the majority of who used IMDB?) this just represents an extra step in getting to the page where we double-check what year RETURN OF THE APE MAN was made...

HarryLong wrote: For those of us who are film geeks (and isn't that like, I dunno, the majority of who used IMDB?) ...

Probably this depends on how you define "film geek," but all the same I doubt it. There's no way to really know, but I'd guess that most people who use IMDb are "who's that guy in that movie with that other guy" types and/or people who are looking up those weird movies that Netflix keeps recommending to them.

Brian C wrote:

HarryLong wrote: For those of us who are film geeks (and isn't that like, I dunno, the majority of who used IMDB?) ...

Probably this depends on how you define "film geek," but all the same I doubt it. There's no way to really know, but I'd guess that most people who use IMDb are "who's that guy in that movie with that other guy" types and/or people who are looking up those weird movies that Netflix keeps recommending to them.

Yeah, you might well be right, judging from the message boards at that site... The people posting there mostly don't seem to be all that knowledgable about film.

I notice that IMDb is making their recommendations much more prominent, now on the front page. They think I should watch Boogie Nights because of my interest in A Serious Man, Five Easy Pieces, and Safe. What? How do you draw a line between those films to Boogie Nights?

I dunno, PT Anderson and the Coens have a similar sense of humor, and probably a similar audience.

I don't see much similarity between the Coens and PTA, but if you say so I'll take your word for it. Safe must be the Julianne Moore connection, but wow are those two completely different films.

I wonder why, since you've presumably seen it, they'd be recommending Boogie Nights in the first place.

I haven't given it a star rating. I only started doing that a couple years ago, and haven't seen Boogie Nights since its initial release. I guess I could give it a rating but it seems unfair when I haven't seen it for over a dozen years.

Oh, I see. same thing with me on about a hundred or so titles.

Now it's telling me to see Barton Fink solely on the basis of my interest in Caché. Don't even try telling me that the Coens and Haneke have similar senses of humor.

I think the recommendations are based on a voting algorithm. If a lot of people who vote positively for one thing do likewise for the other and they share a few keywords, cast/ crew, or genre they'll recommend.

And Scary Movie (which I haven't seen) based solely on the basis of my interest in Some Like It Hot. I guess if you're a fan of Billy Wilder, the Wayans are the next logical progression.

OK, I'll stop now. Needs more work, IMDb.

Brian C wrote:And Scary Movie (which I haven't seen) based solely on the basis of my interest in Some Like It Hot. I guess if you're a fan of Billy Wilder, the Wayans are the next logical progression.

Doesn't Scary Movie feature a bit of cross dressing? Either way, the post above yours was spot on, they use an algorithm to match up recommendations with movies you've already rated. The problem with algorithm's are that they often find the most tenuous connections between movies and use that as their basis for the recommendation. I can't imagine IMDB's system would be much different.

The second movie is the one with the crossdressing (I'm embarrassed to know this).

I wouldn't be surprised if the studios pay to have their films recommended on imdb. That's certainly how it works with "recommendations" on Amazon -- paid for by publishers with room in their budgets to pay for placement fees. The recommendations aren't a statistically accurate reflection of people's buying or reading habits; it's a matter of what publishers are nominating for recommendation and how much they're paying. I'm wondering how comparable to this IMDb's methods are.

Considering what they're recommending me I doubt it though they are owned by the same company.

It seems IMDb have had another refresh and there is no longer a year listed next to the titles of films. A release date for a particular region, dependent upon your settings is present, but this is not the same thing.

Everything looks the same to me. :-k