[profh0011]

Just posted-- WITH EXTREME difficulty & aggravation-- in the IMDB's "community" section:


Regarding the new format……………
I DON'T like it. EVERY time you change something, it's WORSE, not better. When I go to someone's "resume" page, I want to easily see EVERYTHING they've done. This showing "what they're most known for" is BULLSHIT. You're making it MUCH harder for me to do the kind of research I use your site for.

I strongly urge you to allow the OLDER format as an option that one can turn on in a user's SETTINGS, so a person can do it ONCE and not have to bother with this CRAP nonsense ever again.

[The Australian Panther]

IMDB started as a fan produced site. It is now part of Amazon. The internet works like the fishes in Walt Disney's Pinocchio, the little fish is swallowed by a bigger fish which is swallowed by a bigger fish and on and on until there is only the biggest fish left.
The originators would have been made an offer they couldn't refuse - more money than they could possibly turn down. 
IMDB is now about revenue, not information and that they get by using the site as a platform to promote current films. They didn't have to delete the older information, it was already collated and up on the site, but there is no money to be made from it, so goodbye research.

That's the name of the game, I'm afraid.     

[Robb_K]

IMDB started as a fan produced site. It is now part of Amazon. The internet works like the fishes in Walt Disney's Pinocchio, the little fish is swallowed by a bigger fish which is swallowed by a bigger fish and on and on until there is only the biggest fish left.
The originators would have been made an offer they couldn't refuse - more money than they could possibly turn down. 
IMDB is now about revenue, not information and that they get by using the site as a platform to promote current films. They didn't have to delete the older information, it was already collated and up on the site, but there is no money to be made from it, so goodbye research.

That's the name of the game, I'm afraid.     

That action is despicable and reprehensible!!!  They shouldn't be allowed to remove that information from public access.  That was public information.  If such action is allowed, theoretically, the richest conglomerate could buy ALL libraries and ALL information before the public's eyes, and destroy it, or make potential users pay fortunes for access to it, keeping it inaccessible to 99.99% of The Earth's population.  We could effectively LOSE ALL knowledge Humanity has gained over the last 10,000 years, except what individuals have in their homes or can remember on their own.

[The Australian Panther]

I want to easily see EVERYTHING they've done. This showing "what they're most known for" is BULLSHIT.

I should point out that I don't know if Prof's statement is absolutely correct or if the information is there but harder to access. I haven't checked.
But what I said about the monopolization of information on the internet is correct.   
At one time, I understand, Bill Gates had the idea of digitizing the images of all the art in all the galleries and museums in the world and then the idea would have been to charge for usage of the images.   

theoretically, the richest conglomerate could buy ALL libraries and ALL information before the public's eyes, 

Correct. And don't think it hasn't occurred to some of them.
And if you control information you can disappear some of it and you can edit some of it. And you can keep people ignorant of fundamental truths.
But this is just the dark side of human nature. There was not ever a dictatorship in existance that didn't try to control the dissemination of information to some degree.

[profh0011]

I scrolled thru a few actor pages, and, it appears to me they're still usable.

But, without question, they now take up about 5 times more room than they used to.  And this would mean a LOT more scrolling for actors with LONG resumes going on for decades and HUNDREDS of films.

When I did find the discussion thread, I was heartened that SO MANY other users like myself were so VOCAL and so DETAILED in their complaints.



From a personal perspective, I've found myself enjoying movies & TV more in the last few years than at any time in my life since the 60s.  My habit, especially this year, has been to buy old stuff on DVD, space out watching it (in most TV series, ONE episode per WEEK), really soak it in, do research after, and if inspired, write reviews in my own personal style.  And THAT involves looking up resumes of a LOT of people-- actors, writers & directors.  It's amazing what I keep learning, the connections I make, using that site.  If they don't make it HARDER to do so.


One of the most amazing "connections" I ever ran across was, after seeing 2 different movies at least a dozen times apiece over the years-- SUDDENLY finding out that this one actress was in BOTH films, essentially playing a very similar character-- and I'd somehow NEVER noticed it over decades.  (The 2 movies being... HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER and ANIMAL HOUSE... heeheehee.)

[profh0011]

Some things catch my attention in the oddest ways.

Some anoymous contributor (yes, the site is STILL built by unpaid and often anonymous contributors), mentioned in the "trivia" section of A STUDY IN SCARLET (1933) that the plot was almost IDENTICAL to a 1931 Belgian novel.  I decided to look it up.

HE WAS RIGHT.  Turns out, this el cheapo studio bought the rights to the NAME of Doyle's novel, but not the story, and told their screenwriter to come up with something original.  INSTEAD, he adapted this then 2-year-old Belgian novel UNCREDITED and UNPAID.

I've seen 3 different films now all based on the SAME book!  All because of this item in the "trivia" section.  One American, one English, one French.  The latter 2 do mention the novel in the credits.  A NEAR-IDENTICAL scene involving one murder happens in all 3 films.

BUT-- when I tried to add this to the "connections" sections-- the connections for the other films were approved in the other films' pages, but NOT the connection to the 1933 film.

W--T--F ?  I tried it twice.  No go.  That's a VERY odd "glitch".  Or something.  (I've got all 3 DVDs filed on my shelf together.)

Amusingly (or maybe not) are the nu ber of people who've noticed the 1933 film's similarity to a certain VERY FAMOUS Agatha Christie story.  But here's the thing.  Her book came out in 1939.  So, theoretically, she was borrowing ideas from the 1931 Belgian novel, too.  It HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, authors borrowing ideas from other authors, then putting their own spins on it.




I've yet to tackle THE SAINT (1998), which I now know was adapted from a 1914 novel (thanks to someone on THIS board!), and has NOTHING to do with anything ever written by Leslie Charteris.