It is typical of moviechat that, though this miniseries premiered on ITV in Britain last September and on Prime Video in December, it has generated NOT ONE POST until today. This is why I scarcely get on moviechat anymore and still miss with great fondness the IMDB message boards.
shareimdb dudes are a buncha dicks
shareI never had one single problem there even with these so-called trolls that supposedly destroyed it.
sharethe trolls werent the problem it was the dicks running the site giving into hollywoods anti free speech agenda that killed the site
shareYes, i always felt the "trolls" were merely a pretext to get rid of the boards.
shareSounds accurate to me
That is absolutely correct, but not for the reason Borat says. In fact, if IMDb were truly doing that they wouldn’t have been recommending that all their members move their discussions over to social media, where they could “do more damage” of the type Borat refers to.
The IMDb boards were doomed the moment amazon bought the site. They cut back on paid mods, added restrictions and posting quotas, removed old threads from boards with less activity, etc. Amazon never wanted that part of the site—they only ever wanted the database.
It wasn’t that the film industry wanted to silence posters on IMDB; it’s that Amazon never wanted to be in the business of running a a discussion forum. That’s why they gradually started taking down the system almost from the moment they purchased the site. They wanted the database, not the message boards.
Right away, they altered some of the long standing aspects of the IMDB boards. They created maximum thread lengths, posting quotas, reduced the number of mods, altered the terms of service, and pruned down the maximum number of threads allowed on specific boards. (e.g. tons of threads for popular programming like Game of Thrones. Many fewer threads for older, less popular titles.)
"I never had one single problem there even with these so-called trolls that supposedly destroyed it."
Oooh, I did! I think there were certain boards they would infest. One fellow had an entire troll farm. And if he didn't like your opinions all his accounts would report you at once and the mindless algorithm would delete a post or put you in a time out.
They could have policed the place, but the boards were not the reason Amazon bought it. It was a nice, quiet, small little place to chat until every troll in creation descended on The Passion of the Christ board. Then ol' Colin had to keep adding servers because of the traffic. He'd come on every now and then and chew us out because "the message boards are not the reason for IMDb!" Kvetch, kvetch, kvetch.
But the servers were the reason Amazon bought IMDb. They let the kvetcher have all but the message boards, then let whoever started this site supposedly take all the info from the message boards and transplant it here. Except for any of my old posts. Not a single one survived. Interesting, that.
So yes, the trolls were a problem, and a big one. If they took over a board, the trolls got to say who was allowed to speak and who wasn't. But they likely stayed off of the more esoteric boards. Anything controversial and they were all over it.
the show was mediocre at best also
shareIm finding it very entertaining. What didnt you like about it?
sharei don't like period or costume dramas at all , not my thing, only watched cause Olivia Cooke was in it
shareWell, I'm sorry, but it's Thackeray and there are bound to be costumes and period details. You can't really stage the Battle of Waterloo without them. My beef might be with with the oversaturated colors that were probably concocted in a computer and CGI especially in many of the exterior shots.
shareYou should see the colors in Bridgerton, then.
shareI'm 10 minutes into it it's barely ... bearable. They act like people were 2020 minded in 1820 = zero sense in a history perspective.
So far the acting is pretty bad.
Lots of black characters which make no sense for the era. Also I'm wondernig, why black people and not asian people, or latinos people. It makes even less sense.
I still think it’s better than the horrible Witherspoon version.
shareHave you read the book? Just so you know, there are a total of 2 black characters, and they are both in the book, as well as portrayed as black or "mulatto" in other adaptations. Mulatto was a way to often refer to mixed race/dark skinned people. I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound like you know period pieces very well. You only watched 10 minutes and already decided the way you think everything should be. What exactly makes them 2020 minded? I haven't read it myself but I believe this series is very close to the source material, so if anything seems "too modernistic" remind yourself it was written in the 1840s.
shareIf I recall correctly (it has been three years), the girls were acting like teens after the sex revolution, which of course didn't happen in the very prude era of English society in 1840s.
"The girls" you mean Becky? She is supposed to be manipulative, seductive, cheeky, and advanced for her age.Becky was written and intended to be a sexual character. None of the other girls act like her. You also won't admit to your mistake in feeling bothered by the presence of black people (who are reduced to roles as servants or spectacles to be looked at as rich mulattos who inherited their fortune most likely as children out of wedlock from distant fathers.) If you haven't read the book, then you shouldn't be making these assumptions.
shareFirst, the "if you haven't read the book, then you sould'nt be making these assumptions" is not a good argument in my opinion. If you create a show based on a book, your show has to make sense without people having to read a book.
Second, the girl can be advanced for her time but not 200 years before her time. Like I said previously, she was acting like a 2020 teenager, which makes no sense.
Second, I didn't make any mistake. Even if you're historically right about the two black people in the show, it remains an anomaly in England at the time. There was 0.01% black back then but they present them like their presence is perfectly normal at the time.
The goal of this show is clearly to appeal to modern audiences, the reason why I was not too interested into it because it's a red signal that the "history" part is not going to be very strong.
But the real reason I disliked it is because the blabla was annoying and I found it mediocre. I get the fact you like the show, that's ok, but I didn't.
It's a actually a perfectly reasonable argument because um, news flash, a book can also be just as confusing to a reader as watching a show or movie can. That's like saying the book should be logical to someone who's never seen the movie version. If you have a hard time understanding it, then that's a personal problem.
Actually you did make a mistake. I don't deny the fact about the percentage of black people but that isn't what you were arguing was it? You said it would be impossible that there would be black people in a period piece when, as I already explained to you, those very minor roles existed in the original book written in the 1800s, not in modern day, so they are merely translating the book to film. Kind of ironic that you're trying to argue your logic with facts but ignoring the historical context I'm giving you. Then again you go on to complain about the lack of Asians and Hispanics so now I think it's safe to assume you're incapable of understanding very simple things. Does it really bother you that much to have a black person stand in a room and say a few lines with very little screen time? If so, then maybe reevaluate what you watch.
You don't know how 2020 teenagers talk. I was a teenager in 2020, and I'm safely going to assume you were not. Stop generalizing an age group,we don't all talk the same. By saying she's 200 years ahead of her time you're essentially saying the book is because most of her dialogue is taken from the source material. That's also kind of the point, her character is supposed to be a bit crude and crass compared to a more lady like society.
I honestly don't care if you like it or not. It just bothers me that your reasons for disliking it are so minor and blown out of proportion
You don't make any sense and you're just insulting your opponent so I'm gonna stop losing my time answering you.
shareI've explained myself very thoroughly. It isn't my fault if you can't understand something very simple.I'm sorry you feel the need to complicate things. What time are you losing exactly? You didn't respond for even a month and you give extremely vague replies. You choose to spend time on this site. I'm not insulting you just because I argue.it's your problem if you feel insulted. But you're not giving any valid arguments
shareI agree. Softening Becky’s character is ruining it for me, although it’s not nearly as bad as the Reese Witherspoon version, which was positively ghastly.
.
Ha ha
shareYes, how we miss the days of the IMDB boards.
Thanks for making this thread though, so this board doesn't have to be empty.
Why don't you just go and delete yourself?
share