INTRODUCING: Updated IMDb.com Title page experience

The new format sucks.  I detest it.  Please allow those who want to the opportunity to go back to the old format.

these pages are horrible - looks like something out of a 1997 tripod site. Before it was easier to read, now everything's all over the place, things are all different sizes and the thumbnail pictures of actors don't look as good as the designers probably thought they did. Most of the time I'm just looking someone up or reading the trivia, don't need a trailer, a clip of an interview, weirdly giant font randomly and a giant ad at the top to boot.

Ahhh!  Somebody decided to crapify the layout.  I can't stand when established pages do that.  Now it's got all the rinky-dink bells and whistles of every other annoyingly "modernized" web page, with endless scripts punching my browser in the gut, and twirly waiting-to-load things everywhere... waiting to restructure the page upon completion of load.

It's really crap.  Like really, really, really crap.  The loading speed of the page makes me feel like it's 1995.  Why?  WHY!?  Please, somebody tell me how I can return to the old layout.  I don't want to see this anymore: Welcome to the new version of this page.

It's funny; everybody complaining in their reviews about crappy reboots, and here goes IMDB dutifully not understanding that vibe... The vibe of don't-fix-it-if-it-ain't-broke.  Now they gone and broke it.

Would be better if it was all run on a VIC 20.

An option to revert to the old design would be much appreciated. In my experience the new layout is simply harder to use and read.

Thanks but no thanks.  The new layout is crap.

It sucks!  It absolutely sucks!

The new layout is awful. Awful awful awful. I get that it may be appealing to some, but please make an option to go back to the old look. I know what I want when I come to IMDB, and now I want to look somewhere else.

Total trash. Change it back you incompetent morons. 

Love that we can finally click instead of hover to add a title to a list.

But can it be higher on the page so we don't have to scroll down?

not the biggest issue, but just slows down productivity that much more.

love most of what I'm seeing so far though!

Put it back the way it was. I LOATHE the new format. Every time IMDB makes changes, there is no improvement, or anything better, just changes for the sake of change. The new format, in a word, sucks

The new design is truly terrible. It's too busy, hard to navigate, everything is too big but still somehow hard to find. When you search user-unfriendly in the dictionary, you will find a screenshot of the new imdb design. 

How can I get the old view back?

Hate the new design, counter productive, harder to view, harder to navigate, in short, it stinks.

If you must continue with this then please give those that want it a choice of page design to suit the individual.

@Col_Needham I'd like to take a step back and ask a few questions about the new redesign.  
 
1. What was the primary objective you were hoping to achieve with this redesign? From the press releases and communication in this thread, I have seen mention of the need to merge the web and mobile platforms because you were having to build each feature twice. I've also seen it mentioned that it is supposed to increase engagement, and the desire to "modernize" the look of the site. So, back when you made the decision to start this major overhaul, what was most important (and what other goals were included)?
 
2. You said that "A redesign at IMDb always starts with the customer," but who is that customer? Without going down the rabbit hole of customer profile groups, let's just simplify the question down to a few user types here are 4 distinct groups: casual browsers; specific searchers (i.e. using IMDb to lookup specific movie/actor/etc.); decision seekers (i.e. visiting IMDb to determine what to watch - possibly viewing trailers); Database & Power Users (Users who create lists, track movies viewed/owned, etc.). I know that's an overly simplistic view of the customer universe, but for the sake of this discussion, which group or groups most influenced the new design?
 
3. I know I tested the new page several times over the past several months, and each time I opted out after testing and provided feedback that the new design was unpleasant. I never received any follow-up or was asked to participate in surveys, so the next question is how did you gather feedback, both from current users and the "proactive outreach with research panels of customers and non-customers alike"? While I realize that the comment section of a community forum is a small sample size, it does appear that a large number of power users of the site weren't asked for any feedback.

4. What is the purpose of IMDb? The about IMDb page describes the site as "...the world's most popular and authoritative source for information on movies, TV shows and celebrities." I recognize that it has grown exponentially from the beginning, so I'm curious how you perceive the role of IMDb now.  

5. Are you open to the possibility of making changes that will help those of us that are seeking something different - and I'll caveat this right now with the acknowledgment that you can't please everyone, but I think it's a fair question to ask whether you and your team are open to changes. Obviously, if you aren't, then I know I would appreciate knowing that, so I don't spend time on something that won't be considered.

Let me share my background, to explain my lines of questioning. For most of the past decade, I created all the customer help interfaces for one of the largest television providers in the US (on-screen, web, IVR, and help apps, all from scratch), and my systems earned JD Power awards 8 years in a row (after which we bought another television provider and promptly shut our own distribution down). I'm not just someone ranting on the Internet - I have extensive experience in this area AND I genuinely want IMDb to succeed. I would really appreciate it if you would respond, as I think it would help us understand the thinking behind the change. Plus, there's a good chance some of us that are more technically inclined might be able to provide solutions to help solve some of the biggest concerns about the new page. 
 
Thank you in advance for taking the time to read/respond, and I'm happy to engage offline if it's more convenient.
Austin (Texster)

Improper Title/Year Syntax

Example: A Quiet Place (2018) on one line is correct syntax. It makes for easy copying for list creation, further searching, what have you. It's just "right" that way; concise, terse, simple. Movie buffs know this. I find it odd I would even have to bring it up. (I forgive you for always having the extra space at the end, but at least it was near enough to proper form that I could live with it).

Breaking the title and year apart is not only incorrect syntax, it also makes more work and takes more time to convert the data into proper syntax. It's also bad Accessibility design when this is taken into account.

Hard to believe the trusted movie authority could get something so basic so utterly wrong.

If you could just fix this, I will try to muddle through the rest of the pointless redesign. But if you change your mind and call the whole thing off, I shall not weep.

Edit:  Just for clarification, The year should also be in parentheses. Always.

Title*ONE space*(xxxx)*NO space* All on one line. Thus:

Gone with the Wind (1939)