Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
500<400 (Nominations Sep 22nd)
Polls: Animation (Results), 2016 awards (Aug 25th), 1987 (Aug 25th), Benelux (Aug 30th), Knockout competition (Round 1)
Challenges: Romance, UK/Ireland, <400 Checks
Film of the Week: Hospital, September nominations (Aug 30th)

iCM "3.0"

Post Reply
User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 29336
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

iCM "3.0"

#1

Post by mightysparks » November 28th, 2013, 5:38 pm

So, as some people are aware, The Guys have been working on a redesign of the site. Piet just shared this image with us on FB:

Image

I really love the current iCM design, but I think this is a lot cleaner and more modern. I have a few layout issues with it, but it's still in early stages, so I think by the time they are done it'll be pretty awesome.

Some of us posted feedback on FB, mine was that I think all the official lists should be listed on the film page. My suggestion was having all official lists listed in the current compact view on the left, ditching the popular lists bit and having the similar movies along the bottom horizontally like on IMDb (and therefore fitting in more comments).

Piet also wanted some feedback on the logo and I thought it was a little swishy and girly.

Please try and give useful feedback and not be as harsh as we all were with 2.0 :P

If you encounter bugs with 3.0 or have other feedback you want addressed directly, you can also post here: https://discuss.icheckmovies.com/t/iche ... back/53/71 where Marijn is more likely to respond.
Last edited by mightysparks on December 4th, 2016, 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3045
Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Contact:

#2

Post by WalterNeff » November 28th, 2013, 5:58 pm

I like the new layout. It's very clean and modern. I agree with mighty about the logo - what would be neat is if it were in some sort of classic Hollywood typeface. If I had a preference, I'd like to see the official lists on the right instead of the left, because that is where I am used to looking for them, but that's no deal breaker. I can see how this layout will look good on a variety of platforms.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 29336
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#3

Post by mightysparks » November 28th, 2013, 6:01 pm

Yeah, I'd prefer lists on the right because I'm used to it, but it doesn't really bother me. Just went with left since that was where they were. I do like the font used in the current logo because it's just nice and simple, agreed that a movie-related font would be cool.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13021
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#4

Post by brokenface » November 28th, 2013, 6:03 pm

looks promising. feels a bit like current facebook design with the banner at the top style.

doesn't seem to be a spot to indicate whether you've checked the movie yourself though? do you think the idea is the icons on the top right change if you check/favourite?

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 29336
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#5

Post by mightysparks » November 28th, 2013, 6:07 pm

I think the icons will be coloured if you've checked/faved/disliked (basing on the way they're coloured in the 'similar movies' section. I hadn't noticed it, but now that you mention it, I do think the check box should be separate from the other icons coz that's obviously the most important box :P
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 22892
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#6

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » November 28th, 2013, 6:11 pm

mightysparks on Nov 28 2013, 10:38:43 AM wrote:Some of us posted feedback on FB, mine was that I think all the official lists should be listed on the film page. My suggestion was having all official lists listed in the current compact view on the left, ditching the popular lists bit and having the similar movies along the bottom horizontally like on IMDb (and therefore fitting in more comments).

Piet also wanted some feedback on the logo and I thought it was a little swishy and girly.
I agree with you on both of these. Having all of the official lists be right there is the most important thing.

Otherwise I surprisingly don't hate it considering how drastic a change it is. I'm curious what the list view looks like, as I use that one more than the individual film pages.

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13021
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#7

Post by brokenface » November 28th, 2013, 6:13 pm

wonder how they plan to calculate similar movies. most # of shared lists? perhaps user suggestions? it's the kind of feature that could be useful if done well, but otherwise might just clutter the page..

User avatar
insomnius
Posts: 702
Joined: Jan 10, 2013
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

#8

Post by insomnius » November 28th, 2013, 6:13 pm

Dude, The Hobbit is 2012!

Seriously though, this looks fine to me. I think what's most important is to see which official lists a film is in, without having to click somewhere extra, and whether you've checked it or not. Also, I really like how you can see which of your friends who have seen a film in the current layout.

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13021
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#9

Post by brokenface » November 28th, 2013, 6:20 pm

I think the problem with showing all official lists is that with the ones on 10, 20+ lists it'll stretch the page down in a way that might ruin the page design.

I'd like to see more than 3, but I think they have to limit it at some point, esp as new lists will keep getting added.

edit: and actually it'd be cooler if instead of popular lists, it showed you which lists it's on that you are following/favourited.
Last edited by brokenface on November 28th, 2013, 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 29336
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#10

Post by mightysparks » November 28th, 2013, 6:21 pm

I suggested doing the compact list view as it currently is, instead of having them in large blocks with images as it is in the new design. My reasoning was that the lists are what set iCM apart from all the other films sites and keeping that the focus of the film pages is really important.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 9877
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#11

Post by St. Gloede » November 28th, 2013, 6:23 pm

I like the colors and the style well enough, but it does seem a bit messy - furthermore they are stepping too far away from the original lay-out, which will definitely alienate and aggrevate people. Just listen to the complains against the new comment system on youtube, or any FB change. Not that I'm accusing the guys of this, but when you change things people are perfectly happy with, you are indanger of following this path:

"If it's not broken, break it!"

I'm certain many will voice that sentiment when the changes come, as people always do.

To me, it looks pretty good though. (granted, I really love the current lay-out)

Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Posts: 11696
Joined: May 29, 2011
Contact:

#12

Post by Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi » November 28th, 2013, 6:29 pm

Why is The Hobbit up top, but then everything below seems to be about Amelie?

Sir Plebeian
Posts: 1380
Joined: Oct 26, 2012
Contact:

#13

Post by Sir Plebeian » November 28th, 2013, 6:29 pm

I agree, it is odd that the lists are on the left, but something I can easily get over given time. I just hope they add in your rank on each list on more then just the progress page.

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13021
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#14

Post by brokenface » November 28th, 2013, 6:31 pm

St. Gloede on Nov 28 2013, 11:23:48 AM wrote:I like the colors and the style well enough, but it does seem a bit messy - furthermore they are stepping too far away from the original lay-out, which will definitely alienate and aggrevate people.
I think it's much less messy than current design. esp the top section, where the whole top third of the screen has now been condensed into a single neat bar at the top. the menu bar with the film reel is obscenely large on current ICM design. much nicer to have that area used for the film poster/image.

and the way the blocks and tabs are used on current design for the film page are not very neat. three set columns split into blocks looks much cleaner

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 22892
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#15

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » November 28th, 2013, 6:32 pm

Any change will get complaints. I'd see we're some of the pickiest bunch so if we're not hating it that's at least a positive sign.

What I hate most about page design changes isn't when it looks different, but when the focus and functionality changes. The facebook changes were complained about primarily because it buried certain things and brought into prominence other things which aren't what people wanted. Same with imdb. I actually like the visual look of the new imdb pages better, but I stick with the old layout because the new layout puts the focus on less important data and buries data and links I like to have handy.

From what I see of the movie page there, all the key stuff I care about is there, except for a full listing of official lists. I don't care about the similar movies, but as long as they don't clutter the page or take away from other things I care about it's fine.

The list pages and the front (progress) page are the ones I use most, though, so those are where the design change will be more important to me.

User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3045
Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Contact:

#16

Post by WalterNeff » November 28th, 2013, 6:35 pm

Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi on Nov 28 2013, 11:29:20 AM wrote:Why is The Hobbit up top, but then everything below seems to be about Amelie?
I'm sure it's just a mock-up, not actual production.

Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Posts: 11696
Joined: May 29, 2011
Contact:

#17

Post by Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi » November 28th, 2013, 6:38 pm

WalterNeff on Nov 28 2013, 11:35:20 AM wrote:
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi on Nov 28 2013, 11:29:20 AM wrote:Why is The Hobbit up top, but then everything below seems to be about Amelie?
I'm sure it's just a mock-up, not actual production.
But it's supposed to be a sample page for any one film, then?

(I guess I am the only one who finds that an extremely odd display example.)


As for layout, I agree with Peaceful. Looks fine to me, but I'd prefer to see all the official lists it's in right away, and I don't care about similar films.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 29336
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#18

Post by mightysparks » November 28th, 2013, 6:41 pm

They might've had info/pics ready for the Hobbit, but the Amelie page had better comments/activity for the rest of it. When I do mock-ups for stuff, I will often mix up info from different things to get an idea of what certain things will look like altogether.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 22892
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#19

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » November 28th, 2013, 6:45 pm

Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi on Nov 28 2013, 11:38:20 AM wrote:
WalterNeff on Nov 28 2013, 11:35:20 AM wrote:
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi on Nov 28 2013, 11:29:20 AM wrote:Why is The Hobbit up top, but then everything below seems to be about Amelie?
I'm sure it's just a mock-up, not actual production.
But it's supposed to be a sample page for any one film, then?

(I guess I am the only one who finds that an extremely odd display example.)
I found it a bit odd too, but I wasn't even paying enough attention to realize what the other film was. Also the Hobbit isn't over 5 hours (though it felt that way).

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10476
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#20

Post by funkybusiness » November 28th, 2013, 6:45 pm

insomnius on Nov 28 2013, 11:13:55 AM wrote:Dude, The Hobbit is 2012!
317 minutes. Fuck, Jackson needs to cool it with those director's cuts, eh.

Torgo
Posts: 1283
Joined: Jun 30, 2011
Location: Germany
Contact:

#21

Post by Torgo » November 28th, 2013, 6:48 pm

I don't care on which side the official lists are, but if they're limited to show a maximum of 3 at once, that design is going to make iCM unusable for me.

tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3372
Joined: May 18, 2011
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#22

Post by tommy_leazaq » November 28th, 2013, 6:53 pm

Not as bad as I feared. In fact its surprising that the new design did not aggrevate us considering its almost a wholesome change. But still I have some prblems with it. Reasons:-

* Similar Movies & in Popular Lists - Unnecessary stuffs in the home page of a movie. Could be in separate tab.
* Movie info and check details which are important have a poster in the background. Don't like it.
* Restriction on listing the official lists. It is the most important feature in a movie page and has to be fully visible.
* Feeling we are slowly drifting from the minimalist approach which I thought the great strength of iCM.
* Minor thing: The font of "iCheckMovies". I'm too used to the current "i <check symbol> Movies". Especially teh black and red color theme there.


Other than these I'm ok with the layout. I really like the general font type and size and the white and blue theme.

I'm aware that its in a very beginning stage. So hoping for a better revamp. I mean look at where we were when ICM2.0 began and where we ended. So there is strong hope.
Last edited by tommy_leazaq on November 28th, 2013, 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 29336
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#23

Post by mightysparks » November 28th, 2013, 6:55 pm

I actually like the 'screenshot in the background' thing. Liked it on Letterboxd as well, but here I think it's a little more understated. The text could maybe be a bit bigger to make it stand out a little more.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

allisoncm
Posts: 16073
Joined: May 11, 2011
Contact:

#24

Post by allisoncm » November 28th, 2013, 6:57 pm

mightysparks on Nov 28 2013, 11:01:45 AM wrote:Yeah, I'd prefer lists on the right
As long as there's something like the progress page where you can view all the lists on one page. That's one of the most important things to me.

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13021
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#25

Post by brokenface » November 28th, 2013, 6:59 pm

mightysparks on Nov 28 2013, 11:55:54 AM wrote:I actually like the 'screenshot in the background' thing. Liked it on Letterboxd as well, but here I think it's a little more understated. The text could maybe be a bit bigger to make it stand out a little more.
yeah it looks nice, though my big question would be what happens for the (many) films which won't have screenshots..

tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3372
Joined: May 18, 2011
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#26

Post by tommy_leazaq » November 28th, 2013, 7:01 pm

mightysparks on Nov 28 2013, 11:55:54 AM wrote:I actually like the 'screenshot in the background' thing. Liked it on Letterboxd as well, but here I think it's a little more understated. The text could maybe be a bit bigger to make it stand out a little more.
But I guess not everytime we are going to have a suitable screenshot. So its better to remove it altogether IMO.

I am kind of eager to see what kind of screenshot we are going to have for Deep Throat or Otto Muhl shorts. :P

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 29336
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#27

Post by mightysparks » November 28th, 2013, 7:02 pm

Well, this is what Letterboxd does:

http://letterboxd.com/film/one-flew-ove ... koos-nest/
http://letterboxd.com/film/drive-in-massacre/

The pic is way too big and in the way for one, but it's an interesting addition. I think iCM would probably just go with a blank background for films without one.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Posts: 11696
Joined: May 29, 2011
Contact:

#28

Post by Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi » November 28th, 2013, 7:04 pm

tommy_leazaq on Nov 28 2013, 11:53:18 AM wrote: * Feeling we are slowly drifting from the minimalist approach which I thought the great strength of iCM.
* Minor thing: The font of "iCheckMovies". I'm too used to the current "i <check symbol> Movies". Especially teh black and red color theme there.

Yes, the visual motif of the site has always been in keeping with the name of the site: it's about checking movies off lists, and the circle-in-a-square target check gives that sense on a kind of visceral level: "Boom! I just checked that film." This new layout does not have that.

User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3045
Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Contact:

#29

Post by WalterNeff » November 28th, 2013, 7:06 pm

tommy_leazaq on Nov 28 2013, 12:01:12 PM wrote:
mightysparks on Nov 28 2013, 11:55:54 AM wrote:I actually like the 'screenshot in the background' thing. Liked it on Letterboxd as well, but here I think it's a little more understated. The text could maybe be a bit bigger to make it stand out a little more.
But I guess not everytime we are going to have a suitable screenshot. So its better to remove it altogether IMO.

I am kind of eager to see what kind of screenshot we are going to have for Deep Throat or Otto Muhl shorts. :P
What I would suggest for films without an available or suitable screenshot is a generic iCM image like the Hollywood sign, or anything cinematic in feel. On one of my personal spreadsheets I use several classic Hollywood studio logos as a header, but there are probably copyright issues with that.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 22892
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#30

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » November 28th, 2013, 7:09 pm

WalterNeff on Nov 28 2013, 12:06:54 PM wrote:
tommy_leazaq on Nov 28 2013, 12:01:12 PM wrote:
mightysparks on Nov 28 2013, 11:55:54 AM wrote:I actually like the 'screenshot in the background' thing. Liked it on Letterboxd as well, but here I think it's a little more understated. The text could maybe be a bit bigger to make it stand out a little more.
But I guess not everytime we are going to have a suitable screenshot. So its better to remove it altogether IMO.

I am kind of eager to see what kind of screenshot we are going to have for Deep Throat or Otto Muhl shorts. :P
What I would suggest for films without an available or suitable screenshot is a generic iCM image like the Hollywood sign, or anything cinematic in feel. On one of my personal spreadsheets I use several classic Hollywood studio logos as a header, but there are probably copyright issues with that.
That's a good idea, except it should be something else because I'm willing to bet the majority of films without images will in fact be non-Hollywood films, and I can't think of iconic non-Hollywood images. Unless they had a picture for each country and used that for films from that country.

User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3045
Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Contact:

#31

Post by WalterNeff » November 28th, 2013, 7:10 pm

I agree about the minimalist approach, but don't forget that we are less than 1/10th of 1% of the user base. As much as I don't like social media aspects that seem to be added to virtually everything nowadays, I just take it in stride. Anything that helps grow the site and make it more successful is ok with me.

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13021
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#32

Post by brokenface » November 28th, 2013, 7:14 pm

PeacefulAnarchy on Nov 28 2013, 12:09:32 PM wrote:
WalterNeff on Nov 28 2013, 12:06:54 PM wrote:
tommy_leazaq on Nov 28 2013, 12:01:12 PM wrote:But I guess not everytime we are going to have a suitable screenshot. So its better to remove it altogether IMO.

I am kind of eager to see what kind of screenshot we are going to have for Deep Throat or Otto Muhl shorts. :P
What I would suggest for films without an available or suitable screenshot is a generic iCM image like the Hollywood sign, or anything cinematic in feel. On one of my personal spreadsheets I use several classic Hollywood studio logos as a header, but there are probably copyright issues with that.
That's a good idea, except it should be something else because I'm willing to bet the majority of films without images will in fact be non-Hollywood films, and I can't think of iconic non-Hollywood images. Unless they had a picture for each country and used that for films from that country.
I fear that could get a bit cheesy. a picture of the Taj Mahal for every Indian film?

something like a projector or a cinema image could work, but I'd probably rather it was plain than a stock image 'cause you'd soon get sick of seeing any stock image.

tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3372
Joined: May 18, 2011
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#33

Post by tommy_leazaq » November 28th, 2013, 7:15 pm

mightysparks on Nov 28 2013, 12:02:59 PM wrote:Well, this is what Letterboxd does:

http://letterboxd.com/film/one-flew-ove ... koos-nest/
http://letterboxd.com/film/drive-in-massacre/

The pic is way too big and in the way for one, but it's an interesting addition. I think iCM would probably just go with a blank background for films without one.
Here we have texts coming on the screenshot unlike Letterboxd. Movie title in white color and the fav, dislike, check buttons have their own colors. So the screenshot has to be appropriate so that these things are not visually affected.

I see it as a additional and unnecessatry work.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 29336
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#34

Post by mightysparks » November 28th, 2013, 7:17 pm

tommy_leazaq on Nov 28 2013, 12:15:39 PM wrote:
mightysparks on Nov 28 2013, 12:02:59 PM wrote:Well, this is what Letterboxd does:

http://letterboxd.com/film/one-flew-ove ... koos-nest/
http://letterboxd.com/film/drive-in-massacre/

The pic is way too big and in the way for one, but it's an interesting addition. I think iCM would probably just go with a blank background for films without one.
Here we have texts coming on the screenshot unlike Letterboxd. Movie title in white color and the fav, dislike, check buttons have their own colors. So the screenshot has to be appropriate so that these things are not visually affected.

I see it as a additional and unnecessatry work.
As long as they're selected carefully and are faded enough, it should be fine. I think it gives a little more life into the page and also gives you an extra thing to look at when judging whether you're interested in a film or not.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 22892
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#35

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » November 28th, 2013, 7:19 pm

WalterNeff on Nov 28 2013, 12:10:15 PM wrote:I agree about the minimalist approach, but don't forget that we are less than 1/10th of 1% of the user base. As much as I don't like social media aspects that seem to be added to virtually everything nowadays, I just take it in stride. Anything that helps grow the site and make it more successful is ok with me.
This is true to an extent, but I'm not sure the social mediafication of the internet is as widely popular as the push for it from many companies might lead one to believe. To take one example, imdb lists used to get a lot more comments when the comment system was internal to imdb before they switched it to facebook based.

I don't see any of that in this update, though. And it's not like minimalism is inherently opposed to allowing social interaction. The comment system has always been part of ICM.

User avatar
frbrown
Posts: 5857
Joined: Nov 01, 2011
Contact:

#36

Post by frbrown » November 28th, 2013, 7:21 pm

tommy_leazaq on Nov 28 2013, 11:53:18 AM wrote:* Similar Movies & in Popular Lists - Unnecessary stuffs in the home page of a movie. Could be in separate tab.
I wish that every section had a separate tab, the way they do in the current version. Makes it easier to navigate. But I don't see any tabs on that sample page.
Image

tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3372
Joined: May 18, 2011
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#37

Post by tommy_leazaq » November 28th, 2013, 7:33 pm

mightysparks on Nov 28 2013, 12:17:06 PM wrote:
tommy_leazaq on Nov 28 2013, 12:15:39 PM wrote:
mightysparks on Nov 28 2013, 12:02:59 PM wrote:Well, this is what Letterboxd does:

http://letterboxd.com/film/one-flew-ove ... koos-nest/
http://letterboxd.com/film/drive-in-massacre/

The pic is way too big and in the way for one, but it's an interesting addition. I think iCM would probably just go with a blank background for films without one.
Here we have texts coming on the screenshot unlike Letterboxd. Movie title in white color and the fav, dislike, check buttons have their own colors. So the screenshot has to be appropriate so that these things are not visually affected.

I see it as a additional and unnecessatry work.
As long as they're selected carefully and are faded enough, it should be fine. I think it gives a little more life into the page and also gives you an extra thing to look at when judging whether you're interested in a film or not.
Agree. They have to be extra careful while selecting the screenshot. That's why I feel its an additional and unncecessary work for the guys considering majority of the movies won't be having any screenshot anyway.

But yeah, I admit, if it is done correctly it could be great for movies with iconic scenes like Taxi Driver, Psycho, French Connection.
Last edited by tommy_leazaq on November 28th, 2013, 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3372
Joined: May 18, 2011
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#38

Post by tommy_leazaq » November 28th, 2013, 7:39 pm

brokenface on Nov 28 2013, 12:14:26 PM wrote:I fear that could get a bit cheesy. a picture of the Taj Mahal for every Indian film?
No way.. It should be a movie related one.. So it should be a picture of Amir Khan preferably from 3 Idiots.. :shifty:

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 29336
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#39

Post by mightysparks » November 28th, 2013, 7:42 pm

How about this:

Image
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 12107
Joined: May 05, 2011
Contact:

#40

Post by AdamH » November 28th, 2013, 8:10 pm

Some comments:

-The new layout is nicer than the current one. Much more attractive. No doubt easier to make a mobile version for than the current one. Nice work from The Guys.
-As others have said, I'd like to see all the official lists on a film's page. That's one of the main reasons I go on the page in the first place. I'm not interested in "popular lists" though brokenface's suggestion of showing lists you are following sounds decent. I'd rather just see all the official lists it's on and nothing else list-wise on the page.
-I like the current logo. Lauren pointed out that it doesn't actually say "check" anywhere in the current one which might be a problem so I can see why they might want to change it. The new one looks a little too like a girl's blog style to me.

Overall, impressed by the changes. Often with a drastic change people are immediately negative but I think they've done a good job here. Immediately I thought it looked good. One thing about Letterboxd is I think that it looks very good (though I never actually use the site). Like Peaceful said, the new IMDb layout is more attractive but the functionality is terrible so I stick to the old layout. In the case of iCM 3.0, they don't seem to have sacrificed functionality for a nice looking website and that's certainly a big positive.

Post Reply