Redesigned Title Reference View BETA OPT-IN

I think it is a little odd that plot keywords are listed alongside the genres near the top of the page. I think they should be separate, or at least list the genres first. I think it could be more compact, i.e. more information on the screen. I still think the ability to mark a film as "watched" while in reference mode would be a useful addition. After all, those who have 'reference mode' as default, are not going to keep switching views just to mark films as watched.

Hi. There is no breathing space on header and sidebar, making very hard to find the information even if it's actually present above the fold. Also, you should add a "Seen" button, since the new interface of that feature isn't straightforward than previous one. Hope you could fix these annoyances. Thank you.

I don't like this update or the prevoius one from 2 or 3 years ago. If it's not broke, don't fix it. The lack of a Watched box makes me want to move to Rotten Tomatoes. Will there be a way to opt out of this?

I felt I had to register and share my feedback before IMDb becomes something I no longer recognize. My main issue is that mixing film genres with something resembling tags makes the title page unusable for me. Genre is one of the most basic and important pieces of information about a film or show. Making the user scroll or hunt for it is just too much. Despite my fondness for IMDb, I know I'll eventually get tired of this and start looking up movies on other sites that make genres easy to find. These so-called "interests" feel unnecessary in the reference view. But if they absolutely have to be there, please don't mix them in with real genres, which are a totally different class of information. Secondly, the new layout reduces how much useful information is visible at a glance, which is a huge downgrade. Example screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/F9Zm1Xb.png On the first screen of the old reference view, I could see the genres, title type, a preview of videos and photos, and the first 10 cast members. In the new view, none of that fits on the first screen, with some genres hidden behind a flood of interests. Yet somehow I get shown twice who the director and writer are. Overall, the old reference view took up 43 screens, the new one takes 73. That's over 68% more scrolling. In 23 years on this site, I've had to come to terms with a lot of changes I didn't like, but at least there was the reference view, which still carried that good old IMDb vibe. I really don't understand the need to redesign an optional feature that always felt like a preserved, well-loved part of the older site. This honestly feels like the straw that might break the camel's back for me. It's sad to think I'm now on the verge of leaving the site I visit more than any other, every single day. I would be genuinely grateful if you'd consider keeping the classic reference view as an optional setting, like it once was.

I am going to miss the last remaining option for users to have a compact view of data. I can totally understand boldly moving ahead with a redesign, but forcing it upon registered contributors with no option to preserve the classic layout feels tactless.

THe old design has more information on less space, which of course is preferable. The same is true by the way for your artists pages: The old design had ALL information at once, which among other benefits means that you could simply scroll to find an information or even use your browser's find function, which now is impossible because the movie you might search might be among the "next 50" you have to click before you see it. It's called Internet Movie DATA BASE (not PICTURE BASE), so please just show us all DATA as straightforward as possible. Otherwise thanks for your work - I couldn't live without it...

I quite like the new layout which has a cleaner look, however as a reference view I think the main audience for this are people who want to glean information quickly and easily and the old layout did that very well, and I'm not sure the new layout makes a great deal of difference although I understand the other comments, and more scrolling is a retrograde step. Its a tricky balance. The Critic Review links do not seem to work

I just don't get this. There is a responsive site for all the movies, like for matrix: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/ . Why you feel the need to redesign the reference view? And you have a mobile app too, so if someone wants responsive imdb, they just download the app. And Matrix old reference view html save with all the pictures and javascript is around 6 MB. The new reference page is more than 10 MB. How is this progress? More data to download for the same page?

I have another issue with this title, it has a promo ad with video for How to train your dragon that covers the top part of the page (the content should move down, not be covered) it has a collapse button but when I click that it collapses and immediately expands again, covering the top part of the page, so its impossible to see the top details except very briefly. I expect refreshing to show a different ad may solve the issue https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0352389/reference/?ref_=fn_ttl_ttl_20

1st: The span of the names in the metadata list is too narrow. Longer names need 2 lines while the character span is too wide, there is very much space left. Maybe a 50/50% space for each column would be easier on the eyes. 2nd: Title and year could be a font size down and a little more padding between the head / synopsys / main credits would be also easier on the eyes, like you did in the page section below. (viewed in Windows Edge) In addition: On the right in the German version of Did you know? it says WUSSTEST DU SCHON: It's the only heading all in caps - a correct version would be: Wusstest du schon? Also the headings on the right could use a little padding below and maybe a thin line around or a smaller yellow line left. It looks a bit cheap and not good.

The movie I just pulled up and scrolled through takes 31 screens in the old format and 43 screens in the new. This is data to support my impression, and that of others, that white space has been added profligately. If this were a novel, more white space might be good, but this is a reference page, and more scrolling just makes it harder to read. Also, the non-standard scroll bar is ugly and distracting. Why override my personal choice?

Another thing just bothered me: The original title is missing! Before you could see the original title below the national title, now it vanished, only available in the a.k.a. section at the bottom or with a click on the release date. This is suboptimal. The reference view is about maximum efficiency! But I have one plus to report: On the series page you now have all seasons with less clicks (except it has more than 22 seasons). Maybe make it scrollable as on the seasons page!? It would be best you keep the old layout but with more responsive css...

My main problem is the same I had when the title full credits pages were redesigned, the distractingly massive font size of the department/occupation headers in relation to the credits. In the current version everything is the same font size, which looks neat and clean. I'm also surprised the new version actually removes the preview of the first five images on a page.

OH F NO. This was the one thing you promised time and time again you would not touch. THE ONE THING. As recently as a couple of months ago. Who is giving feedback that these redesigns look good and/or improve functionality?