Introducing: Interests on Web

Hi @Peter_pbn​ -

Currently the related interests widget is only available on the mobile apps.  Apologies for the confusion, I have now corrected this in the announcement text.

"Tragedy" is problematic.

Not all the subgenres listed in the keyword section have been promoted to interests, so I guess the selection could be adjusted.

Tragedy is a massive potential spoiler in almost every possible use case.

The tragedy subgenre is hardly a spoiler, it refers to one of the oldest genres of all time. It's Greek, it's Shakespearean, and doesn't reveal much more than it connoting suffering or despair etc., "spoilers" are far more contemporary by comparison, and the term tragedy alone doesn't exactly spell out what will happen in any given title.

@HighWater​ 

That is a fair point. 

It should stay, but needs to be used with concerted discretion.

@Coyote444​ Interests launched on the IMDb apps last November, please see ->  https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/introducing-interests/656628e9da48614665c037db 

You can add them as plot keywords via the "subgenre" type, please see -> https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/titles/keywords/GXQ22G5Y72TH8MJ5 

Ah! Thank you for that, Col! I can't use apps cos my phone is not "smart" and doesn't have the memory capacity to DL anything more. (bloatware that I can't delete) but I see that keywords can be added on PC desktop.

However, Kate & Leopold does have "time-travel" as keyword, but it doesn't appear in the front page, under "genre bubbles", like (the silly) "feel-good romance" does: 

Kate & Leopold (2001) - Plot keywords - IMDb

Do you know why? 

@Coyote444​ 

It would need the keyword time-travel-sci-fi – however, I see that the film doesn't have the sci-fi genre.

The official subgenre keywords are listed in the guide at

https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/titles/keywords/GXQ22G5Y72TH8MJ5#subgenres

Thanks, Peter. Yes, it's not sci-fi, so that is a problem. I see that Frequency has sci-fi which it isn't (IIRC, haven't seen the film since back when, wow 24 yrs already!) but it doesn't have time-travel which it is one of the best in that genre:

Frequency (2000) - IMDb

The same I couldn't find Goth Romance as a subgenre. That is certainly more (important? prevalent?) than "Feel Good Romance" because...what if my feel good romance makes another vomit!? (More like vice-versa, LOL!)  Here, I'll put one in that fall into that "vice-versa" category:

Twilight (2008) - IMDb
What, no Goth Romance?  Well IDK if it is, cos I've only channel surfed into a scene here and there, nuff said, but I've found others that qualify as Goth Romance and...nothing! 

So for TPTB consideration... 

Frequency IS a Sci Fi film & should be classified as such. It's about TIME, but it technically doesn't have time TRAVEL -- it has communication across a period of time, like 20 years or something.

Similar, in Paycheck the main character creates a machine to VIEW the future, but no one actual TRAVELS in time.

It's interesting because both of these films will be loved by fans of Time Travel SF because of similar tropes, but don't meet the technical definition of the subgenre.

(Does sending information back in time qualify as time travel?)

What about Interstellar? That one is really one the fence. And a massive spoiler...

---

More: now we have another inconsistency. Next (https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0597373/?ref_=tt_mv) is also a film in which a character can see the future, but there is no Time Travel, but it IS tagged as such on IMDb.

Twilight belongs to a pretty huge multigenre "thingum" that is Urban-Fantasy-Romance-Thriller that has emerged over the past 15+ years.

This thingum has its own unique flavour and should have a name of its own like "Superhero"

Since you asked: YES, Frequency *IS* Time-Travel and one of the very best in the genre. The voice does the traveling. Can I talk to Errol Flynn right now, with or without a magic CB radio? No, I can't. Therefore this is FANTASY genre and, if I may politely disagree with you, NOT Sci-Fi. (If you refer to the descriptions given by IMDb, that is.)  There is nothing 'science' that they use. CB is a device which really exists, they're not delving in any sci-fi IMHO. 

As for Twilight, I name that feature as example in Goth-Romance because I simply didn't want to name the one I actually had in mind. So I found another (than "mine") which I believe could qualify as Goth-Romance, since mine definitely is. I just added bold so hopefully someone scrolling down fast will stop for the bold. I think it's a unique sub-genre like Time-Travel and, although most teeny bopper stuff in that category will be cheesy to the max, the one in mind is super-stellar, and I thought it'd be cool to have that sub-genre or sub-mention or "interest".

Insofar as Twilight, you will pardon me that I mentioned it without having any interest in it or its subgenres, I was just going "Whoa!" at how many it had and used it for illustration only.  

@Coyote444 

Fictional technology is not a requirement for a book/film to be Sci-Fi.

Many books/films that are considered Sci-Fi fall in the category of "Social Science Fiction" which are set in dystopian alternate or future realities but have none of the tech or bio etc. tropes of mainstream science fiction. I think the first Hunger Games film is a good example of this.

Some have suggested SF be rebranded as "Speculative Fiction" rather than Science Fiction.

As far as "Frequency" is concerned... the film has, for lack of a better way of phrasing it, the "flavour" of a Science Fiction film. (You are welcome to criticise this comment for lack of rigour!)

In any case, welcome to the boards.

I think we shall have fun.

"dystopian alternate or future realities" - Ooh, like 1984, the book? (I'm sure they musta made movies out of it.) It has to be moved from sci-fi to documentary, due the recent events, which I shall not name. 🤪

Ah! Well to me it requires fictional tech or a mad scientist. Either or! To give it my science-fiction stamp of nutty approval, that is. We can switch to "sci-fi" (sy-fy?), that way it encompasses the...uh...ah, whatever you speculatively typed ^up there, and everybody is happy. <G> Plus, soon, kids will ooh and aah (like, in 2 years) when they learn that "sci/sy" once stood for "science". The same that the DailyMail this weekend announced to the world that people had no idea "O'clock" meant "Of the clock". (Admittedly, I knew this as a kid, but I'd have called a lifeline to make sure my "on the clock" deal or no deal wasn't wrong now, ...and it was!) 

You might be right, I probably need to truck on over to a Russian site, and see if they don't have Frequency and re-watch it, like for the very first time, cos I forgot most of it. Then I will be able to see if you are indeed right. But, in the interim, don't nobody 😁 mess with my Frequency: although not a fan per se of any actors, I was big into "Time-Travel" way before anyone could even fathom it was a thing genre sub-genre, and I remember it fondly, for it also encompasses another subgenre i happen to probably, most likely be into: cool father-son relationships.

(Is that a thing?) I have no idea why, but for a while, in the 90s, a LOT of the shows (KFTLC, FK etc.) I watched had father/son relationships. No Xena for me! I don't go out of my way to be anti-feminist, really; I just don't get the movement, and always had that glazed-over look when female classmates were deep into it and try to get me to agree: "but he is soo cuteee!" "But I love to cook and make sammiches!" "No, I think I'm gonna stay right here but you enjoy the protest." Plus, I can never (very rarely) relate to women in shows or films, except Angelina Jolie as Mrs. Smith when she goes: "Why do I have to get the girl gun?" 

Anyway, will try to re-watch Frequency, for the very first time since it came out, soon and report back with rebuttals or agreements. And thank you for the welcome, much appreicated: it is fun, here! 🤗

Yes, 1984 is an excellent example of "Social Science Fiction".

Holiday is called a genre in the interest page; maybe it has deliberately been placed with the main genres.

https://www.imdb.com/interest/in0000192/

I noticed that there are titles with the holiday-season keyword that are not in the Holiday interest, for example Krampus and Christmas with Holly. I wonder how exactly the interest is set up.

I never saw the appeal of Columbo.

"Huge spoiler in first 5 mins." is right. Pointless.

Thank you! Same here.  (At least Bewitched has all the cool magic happening, which was way fun to watch as a kid, and still can be.) 

IDK if there's any interest in the "FORMULAIC" category, but it's not for a put-down as my previous tongue-in-cheek "cheesy" suggestion was. I think for people who like repetitive things, it can be important to find. (Typically, my 'group' falls into that category of people, but I really don't.) However, tagging it as formulaic can also help others avoid such shows, past, perhaps the one (episode we find it with).

@Coyote444​ 

I have not been to a public library in years, but I remember the Mills and Boone's books (North Americans - think Harlequin Romances) used to have their own section separate from the rest of the Fiction.

IMDb should do the same for Lifetime and Hallmark movies 😂

LIFETIME: 🤮Films for women who like to watch women get beat up👿by abusive men, played by actors whose acting is so stilted and contrived, you feel like giving Madonna an Oscar for Swept Away. - 

How do we bottle ^^^that up in 1 word?🤫 Must also encompass the "cheesy" factor and "formulaic" category.  

HALLMARK: used to have some cute films, some mostly bad. All extremely formulaic too. I remember watching a cringe one with a very miscast Miyiaim Biailik (how many i's does her name have total?) 🤪 She played it angry till the end. It was unintentionally hilarious, as most of these are.

Avoid anything with Kellie Picker in it: her stop-start character acting makes you feel like apologizing to the aforementioned Lifetime performers, for they could actually be much, much worse! 😊

@KIMHYESOO​ 

Generally, the subgenres are listed first followed by the main genres. Within each group, they appear to be in alphabetical order.

I think I would prefer the main genres to be listed first.

@Peter_pbn​ it looks like this on web version, 1 subgenre, 9 genres (thriller at the end).

It can go up to 15 genres and subgenres. Not a good idea, in my opinion.

You are using reference view?

OK, I jumped to conclusions. But for example Mad Max: Fury Road has thriller as a genre, but it isn't included. Perhaps the limit is 10 items.

@Peter_pbn​ yup, that's it, subgenres take precedence over genres. 🤐

@Flyingrat​ Most (but not all) Interests are actually implemented via plot keywords which can be searched on the advanced title search (ATS) page.  We have not yet added a separate field for Interests, however, there is an easy workaround in the meantime ... 

Start at the "All Interests" page at https://www.imdb.com/interest/all/ and navigate to the specific interest you wish to use in an advanced title search.  In your example, Dark Fantasy is at https://www.imdb.com/interest/in0000095/ and on this page click the "All" button under the description of the interest to reach: https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?title_type=feature,tv_movie,tv_special,video,tv_series,tv_miniseries&interests=in0000095 -- you can now add other parameters into this interest search via the filters in the left-hand side of the page (click "Expand all" near the top to see the full list of filters).  You can bookmark/favourite any specific queries you expect to use regularly in your browser. 

For example, Dark Fantasy movies which you have not seen, sorted by vote volume would be -> https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?title_type=feature&my_ratings=exclude&interests=in0000095&sort=num_votes,desc 

You can also click an Interest on a title page to go directly to its landing page and therefore skip the "All Interests" page in the instructions above. 

Hope this helps.