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.)
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.
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