|
There's been a debate in QCS over whether spoilers really ruin an experience. Specifically, it was about Game of Thones. I don't know poo poo about TV, but I do watch movies. I don't think knowing the ending beforehand ever tarnished even one of them. I think, if anything, movies with a twist ending are the most likely to be ruined. I watched the Usual Suspects and the Sixth Sense years after they came out, and I still enjoyed them. I don't think I missed out on anything by knowing the ending beforehand. I've known the ending to every family movie I've ever seen. Hiccup was never going to be murdered in How To Train Your Dragon. The dragons were never going to barbecue and eat the entire village. Po, the Kung Fu panda, was always going to triumph over Tai Lung. In Home Alone, Kevin McCallister was never going to be beaten and sodomized by the Wet Bandits during their raid. Yet, I still enjoyed the poo poo out of these flicks. Schwarzenegger, Seagal, Van Damme, and Stallone were always going to win, except in Terminator 1 where Schwarzenegger was always going to lose, and the Expendables where we as the audience were always going to lose. Spoilers don't ruin viewing experiences. People caring about spoilers on an Internet forum ruins them. It arbitrarily limits conversation for people who have already seen something. If you truly don't want to know the ending, don't go on the Internet until you watch it. If someone posts about the Superbowl victors half a week after the game, you'll never see someone melt down about the score being spoiled for them. That would result in deserved mockery. I've never read CineD before. What do you guys think? Edit: QCS thread that spawned this thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3726237 Marta Velasquez fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Jun 19, 2015 |
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
In the case of GoT, it's spoiled for sport in places where GoT isn't discussed. Your idea is not that these people are being jerks, but that you should stay away from the internet until the show is over? I think it's generally easier to avoid movie spoilers if the trailer doesn't give it away. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:In the case of GoT, it's spoiled for sport in places where GoT isn't discussed. Your idea is not that these people are being jerks, but that you should stay away from the internet until the show is over? I think it's generally easier to avoid movie spoilers if the trailer doesn't give it away. I agree with this, but to compare similar things: was Lord of the Rings ruined by knowing the ending beforehand? The same can be said for every movie based off a book series.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:In the case of GoT, it's spoiled for sport in places where GoT isn't discussed. Your idea is not that these people are being jerks, but that you should stay away from the internet until the show is over? I think it's generally easier to avoid movie spoilers if the trailer doesn't give it away. The idea is just that so-called "spoilers"— that is, knowing something beforehand about the plot of a movie (or show or book, etc)— don't actually spoil anything, they don't diminish the entertainment value or enjoyability of the film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
I think with a movie there is less time investment. Even if LOTR is what? 17~ hours long if you include the Hobbit, that's only like 2 seasons of GoT. Also GoT is more recent and not in the collective osmosis as LOTR may be. I had a girlfriend who has never seen Star Wars but when I asked her about the plot of the OT she got it pretty drat close just based on poo poo like cartoon parodies and references from nerds in movies. I get what you are saying, and I don't really care about the "ending" being spoiled - I know Stallone is going to win or whatever. It's more when someone spoils the how, and the villain reveal, and funny set piece, and the bombastic action bit. This is a bit like your comment on the Super Bowl. I'm a big baby and can't help but mouse over black text boxes when it comes to getting hyped, though. E: To spoil Commando's ending, he kills everyone and walks away in his speedo to steel drum music. That's not the important part for me. Firstborn fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
The assumption with spoilers is that the viewer "goes in fresh" and hence has an original experience from any subsequent viewings. The problem with this assumption is that (especially if you've seen a lot of media) a lot of things follow the same basic beats. You can use the monomyth as an example, but basically you have certain assumptions of the work based on the genre and the surrounding archetypes. The interest then shifts to "twists", which are supposedly unexpected turns of events that even a veteran wouldn't reasonably expect. The problem with twists is that they themselves either must make narrative sense, or are done in such a poor manner that they make the work kind of meaningless. For an example of the former, Ned Stark dying* in Season 1 of Game of Thrones was unexpected, but was a fairly common story beat (the wise old(er) man who dies and sets up conflict for younger characters - see Obi-Wan et all). For an example of the latter, take the video game Mass Effect 3. The revelation that the space weapon is secretly controlled by the bad guys' hive mind is certainly unexpected, but it really doesn't work well narratively. *I'm not spoiling this because it's about as well known culturally as most of Sean Bean's other characters dying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:I think with a movie there is less time investment. Even if LOTR is what? 17~ hours long if you include the Hobbit, that's only like 2 seasons of GoT. Also GoT is more recent and not in the collective osmosis as LOTR may be. I had a girlfriend who has never seen Star Wars but when I asked her about the plot of the OT she got it pretty drat close just based on poo poo like cartoon parodies and references from nerds in movies. I knew Dexter was going to kill the villain of every season. You could even tell me how he would kill John Lithgow and that Rita would be dead. I'd still want to see it. (If anything, I wish someone "spoiled" me that Dexter wasn't worth watching after that season. No matter how hot Hannah McKay was, it still couldn't remove the "Debra loves Dexter" stink.) When I watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I already knew about Dawn and how Buffy died, Willow's dark phase, etc etc. I still liked it, and IIRC that was longer than GoT so far.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:E: To spoil Commando's ending, he kills everyone and walks away in his speedo to steel drum music. That's not the important part for me. It was for me. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
contrapants posted:I knew Dexter was going to kill the villain of every season. You could even tell me how he would kill John Lithgow and that Rita would be dead. I'd still want to see it. (If anything, I wish someone "spoiled" me that Dexter wasn't worth watching after that season. No matter how hot Hannah McKay was, it still couldn't remove the "Debra loves Dexter" stink.) That's fair. I don't think you are wrong at all, I just think maybe some people are more sensitive about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The assumption with spoilers is that the viewer "goes in fresh" and hence has an original experience from any subsequent viewings. The problem with this assumption is that (especially if you've seen a lot of media) a lot of things follow the same basic beats. You can use the monomyth as an example, but basically you have certain assumptions of the work based on the genre and the surrounding archetypes. So, does it follow that not caring about spoilers is a sign that you are becoming jaded to media? Sure, things are still worth watching, but not like when you're, for example, a teenager?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Ralp posted:The idea is just that so-called "spoilers"— that is, knowing something beforehand about the plot of a movie (or show or book, etc)— don't actually spoil anything, they don't diminish the entertainment value or enjoyability of the film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Maybe it's a sign that you are less invested in that particular thing? You could spoil that new Pixar movie and I'll probably see it eventually, but I've been avoiding Jurassic World spoilers because I want to see it tomorrow. \/\/\/\/ Yeah,for sure. Honestly I think a few things should be "spoiled". I know people love to go into things "completely blind", but it's never completely because they are at least familiar with the conceit, or the franchise. You can say you'd watch any Refn movie completely blind - but why? Because you are familiar with the themes and stuff presented. Firstborn fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:That's fair. I don't think you are wrong at all, I just think maybe some people are more sensitive about it. There's a weird undercurrent on the extreme end of that, where folks want to make the uh, first time perfect and pure and etc
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
I added a link to the QCS thread in the OP for those interested.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
contrapants posted:I think, if anything, movies with a twist ending are the most likely to be ruined. I watched the Usual Suspects and the Sixth Sense years after they came out, and I still enjoyed them. I don't think I missed out on anything by knowing the ending beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:How do you know this? How can you determine what affects how someone else enjoys something? Phone posting so I can't dig up the link (I hope someone has it on hand since it's a neat read) but there was a study that came to that conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
Ralp posted:The idea is just that so-called "spoilers"— that is, knowing something beforehand about the plot of a movie (or show or book, etc)— don't actually spoil anything, they don't diminish the entertainment value or enjoyability of the film. The problem is I don't know if a "spoiler" actually spoiled anything until after I've seen it, and then its already too late. There are plenty of films that hinge on a handful of critical scenes, and if you know what they are ahead of time the impact would be lost. Even without getting into more over-the-top, Sixth Sense/Usual Suspects-style twists, I can think of a bunch of films that I absolutely wouldn't have wanted to know anything about beforehand. Wouldn't it be better to watch Alien for the first time without knowing that Ripley goes on to become an iconic character featured in three more films? Audiences at the time had no idea who the main character of the movie was supposed to be, which created a ton of suspense. Are there plenty of other reasons why Alien is awesome? Can I watch it for cinematography and set design alone? Sure I can, but it has more to offer if you go in blind. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:You missed out on the experience of coming to the realization of these facts on your own based on the clues given by the narrative. Whether or not that's worth anything to anybody is a different discussion, but to simply act like knowing a plot twist before watching something and having the twist revealed WHILE watching something are equivalent is a weird assumption to make. It's not like I haven't seen movies without knowing the twist for comparison. Off the top of my head, I've seen Saw, the Village, Resurrection, Memento, Inception, and Arlington Road without knowing what happens. I still enjoyed them all the same. Edit: I know Inception isn't a "twist," but it's ambiguous enough that I think I can include it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
contrapants posted:So, does it follow that not caring about spoilers is a sign that you are becoming jaded to media? Sure, things are still worth watching, but not like when you're, for example, a teenager? I wouldn't say jaded necessarily. It's a sign that you don't necessarily care about the plot of the movie, but that doesn't mean that you don't appreciate other aspects of the film. For a more invested viewer, this can be cinematography and the like. For a more casual viewer, it can be that rush of adrenaline you feel in an action scene. For example, a Transformers film is probably going to end with several robots fighting each other. The way to set that up is not necessarily important, so people don't care about Transformers spoilers even if they still paid (cumulatively) over $1 billion to go see it. Firstborn posted:Maybe it's a sign that you are less invested in that particular thing? You could spoil that new Pixar movie and I'll probably see it eventually, but I've been avoiding Jurassic World spoilers because I want to see it tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
contrapants posted:It's not like I haven't seen movies without knowing the twist for comparison. Off the top of my head, I've seen Saw, the Village, Resurrection, Memento, Inception, and Arlington Road without knowing what happens. I still enjoyed them all the same. To use Arlington Road as an example, don't you think the movie is better if you don't know what happens in the last third? Doesn't the entire thing depend on the idea that you don't know exactly what the deal is with the neighbors and that Bridges may just be paranoid? If you know exactly where it all leads where's the suspense come from? Do you just never feel suspense when watching a film?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Srice posted:Phone posting so I can't dig up the link (I hope someone has it on hand since it's a neat read) but there was a study that came to that conclusion. The published study: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/9/1152 A more readable summary of the study: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/soc/2011_08spoilers.asp A really interesting paper about the Paradox of Suspense: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-suspense/ (the phenomenon that, counterintuitively, we still experience suspense when we know the outcome of a story)
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
I thought the issue with spoilers wasn't that they lessen the enjoyment you get from the story, but that it fundamentally changes the whole experience. I've definitely been spoiled or spoiled myself on plenty of movies I've gone on to really love and enjoy, but I have pretty fond memories of  moments from shows and movies too.It's also kind of nice when you really don't know what's up because you can't think ahead or predict what's about to happen. I kind of regret watching the Jurassic World trailers because at certain points in the movie, I could figure out what would probably happen because certain scenes in the trailers hadn't shown up yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
If a movie or a TV show relies on a major plot twist/dramatic reveal so heavily that knowing it in advance significantly diminishes your enjoyment of it, then it seems to me that it was actually a pretty lovely movie/show.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
For me it's basically that I want to go into a movie and extract my own experience out of it. I don't want to hear from somebody "It was so crazy when he was dead the whole time" or "Can you believe they killed that person off? I didn't see that coming". I want to decide if it was "crazy" or "unexpected", not be told what it is. I also think that movies are enjoyed at multiple levels. The first time I watch something is never going to be the same as the 5th time I see it. By being "spoiled" of a part of movie I'm basically tainting one of the potential "experiences". For a movie like "Sixth Sense", I've seen it maybe 5 or 6 times in my life. I still enjoy it each time I watch it, even though I know what is going to happen. But my enjoyment today is different then my enjoyment back in 98 when it first came out. That doesn't make the movie "bad".
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:If a movie or a TV show relies on a major plot twist/dramatic reveal so heavily that knowing it in advance significantly diminishes your enjoyment of it, then it seems to me that it was actually a pretty lovely movie/show. Lets forget about measuring levels of enjoyment for a second. I think anyone would agree that when a film involves plot twists(i.e. almost every movie ever made), you would have a different experience watching it blind versus knowing the story ahead of time. You'd have different thoughts running through your head, different reactions to certain scenes, and probably feel different emotions than you would otherwise feel had the plot not been spoiled. Its also reductive to just say that if a film relies on a twist then it isn't very good. Effectively building to a twist and successfully surprising the audience isn't easy, and when its done right it can create extremely memorable cinematic moments. I wouldn't want to deprive myself of the possibility of one of those moments. For me personally I want to experience a film in the way that the filmmakers intended me to, and I don't think most directors would recommend reading a plot summary before viewing their films.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
redcheval posted:I thought the issue with spoilers wasn't that they lessen the enjoyment you get from the story, but that it fundamentally changes the whole experience. I've definitely been spoiled or spoiled myself on plenty of movies I've gone on to really love and enjoy, but I have pretty fond memories of Basebf555 posted:Lets forget about measuring levels of enjoyment for a second. I think anyone would agree that when a film involves plot twists(i.e. almost every movie ever made), you would have a different experience watching it blind versus knowing the story ahead of time. You'd have different thoughts running through your head, different reactions to certain scenes, and probably feel different emotions than you would otherwise feel had the plot not been spoiled. Its also reductive to just say that if a film relies on a twist then it isn't very good. Effectively building to a twist and successfully surprising the audience isn't easy, and when its done right it can create extremely memorable cinematic moments. I wouldn't want to deprive myself of the possibility of one of those moments. Yeah, and deciding for people whether or not they should be allowed to have the experience that they want to have is lovely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
I'm binging through two older TV shows at the moment, one of which I have seen before, and one of which I have not. I don't know which I'm enjoying more (and neither do you), but I would absolutely say that I am enjoying them both. I like the experience of finding out what's going to happen in the context of a story (as opposed to outside of it), and I like the freedom of already knowing, so that I can focus on other aspects of the story. They're different experiences, but they're both enjoyable experiences and I have no intention of giving up either one, certainly not just so some jackass on the internet can get a laugh. That's the factor missing from this high-minded "people like being spoiled, really" stuff. I may not mind being spoiled, in fact, I generally don't. But that doesn't make poking people with sticks in the hopes of provoking a reaction any less pathetic. And let's be clear: that's what's happening. No one is genuinely trying to do anyone a favor by spoiling them on Game of Thrones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Lets forget about measuring levels of enjoyment for a second. I think anyone would agree that when a film involves plot twists(i.e. almost every movie ever made), you would have a different experience watching it blind versus knowing the story ahead of time. You'd have different thoughts running through your head, different reactions to certain scenes, and probably feel different emotions than you would otherwise feel had the plot not been spoiled. Its also reductive to just say that if a film relies on a twist then it isn't very good. Effectively building to a twist and successfully surprising the audience isn't easy, and when its done right it can create extremely memorable cinematic moments. I wouldn't want to deprive myself of the possibility of one of those moments. given a choice between depriving yourself of jump scares, or depriving everyone of the ability to ever have a substantive discussion of anything they have ever seen without a bunch of crybabies throwing a fit about losing their jump scares, one of these things is reasonable and worth being concerned about. The GOT spoiler titles in GBS are there because GBS is lazy as hell and spoiler people have a long history of being the most easily provoked and whiny people in existence, and they don't seem to actually enjoy anything so much as constantly insist they are being denied enjoyment by trailers, reviews, discussions of decades-old novels, suggestive cloud formations etc. It might be a slightly different experience but it's really not a difference worth caring about, or pursuing compulsively, or giving up anything else for. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:In the case of GoT, it's spoiled for sport in places where GoT isn't discussed. Your idea is not that these people are being jerks, but that you should stay away from the internet until the show is over? I think it's generally easier to avoid movie spoilers if the trailer doesn't give it away. I recently had a certain cookout with a certain character spoiled for me in GoT.... I can affirm that it was a bummer to know it was coming in that episode and I would have preferred not having that event spoiled for me. Yes, spoilers suck, but there aren't spoilers without people who suck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:given a choice between depriving yourself of jump scares, or depriving everyone of the ability to ever have a substantive discussion of anything they have ever seen without a bunch of crybabies throwing a fit about losing their jump scares, one of these things is reasonable and worth being concerned about. The GOT spoiler titles in GBS are there because GBS is lazy as hell and spoiler people have a long history of being the most easily provoked and whiny people in existence, and they don't seem to actually enjoy anything so much as constantly insist they are being denied enjoyment by trailers, reviews, discussions of decades-old novels, suggestive cloud formations etc. Who is even talking about jump scares? There's quite a difference between knowing where the cheap jump scares are in a horror movie and knowing exactly what happens at the end of say, House of the Devil or Kill List. And what do jump scares have to do with Game of Thrones? Edit: To be clear though, I do think people should know what they are getting into when they browse movie forums and message boards. If you are concerned about spoilers don't go into threads where spoilers may be discussed. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:If a movie or a TV show relies on a major plot twist/dramatic reveal so heavily that knowing it in advance significantly diminishes your enjoyment of it, then it seems to me that it was actually a pretty lovely movie/show. This is the crux of it
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Who is even talking about jump scares? There's quite a difference between knowing where the cheap jump scares are in a horror movie and knowing exactly what happens at the end of say, House of the Devil or Kill List. And what do jump scares have to do with Game of Thrones? I am sorry for mischaracterizing the specific genre of thrill of surprise you are pursuing, but I don't actually care. Movies and TV shows are not some elaborately expensive new form of jack-in-the-box there solely to startle you with unexpected movements and if that is the main level you engage with them on 1. you're a weirdo and 2. you're actively stunting your ability to enjoy movies. It's a little bit neat when it happens, but it's never the most interesting, or even among the most interesting, things going on in a work of art - not in mystery movies, and definitely not in film adaptations of genre novels so old that if they were people they'd be in grade school by now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Roger Ebert casually discusses the ending to films in tons of his reviews if it's important to why he liked it, and that's just another reason why he was the best. RIP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:I am sorry for mischaracterizing the specific genre of thrill of surprise you are pursuing, but I don't actually care. Movies and TV shows are not some elaborately expensive new form of jack-in-the-box there solely to startle you with unexpected movements and if that is the main level you engage with them on 1. you're a weirdo and 2. you're actively stunting your ability to enjoy movies. It's a little bit neat when it happens, but it's never the most interesting, or even among the most interesting, things going on in a work of art. Anyone ever tell you you're kind of a dick?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
I prefer to enjoy movies as a kind of slots game where I buy my tickets with no idea as to what it's about, who's in it, or whether it's any good and gamble on whether I'll hate it or not and I think it is EXTREMELY RUDE that people kill my suspense by saying movies are 'good' or discussing them where I can hear them, and know that the movie is therefore worth discussing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:I prefer to enjoy movies as a kind of slots game where I buy my tickets with no idea as to what it's about, who's in it, or whether it's any good and gamble on whether I'll hate it or not and I think it is EXTREMELY RUDE that people kill my suspense by saying movies are 'good' or discussing them where I can hear them, and know that the movie is therefore worth discussing. Are you having a conversation with yourself? Are you having a stroke? I'm confused.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Yeah, a dick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Okay, I don't understand the options in this poll. So the subject is "Spoilers don't ruin movies. People do." and I can chose between "Yes! They make me die the small death." and "No. Posting on an Internet forum is more important to me." So, to paraphrase, "I agree that people ruin movies, and also people make me orgasm" and "People don't ruin movies, spoilers might, and I'm more invested in posting either way." I guess I'm leaning towards the first one, but since I'm taking the time to post this I can obviously see the merits of option 2. Anyway, I don't mind having the plot of a movie spoiled for me. This is also why I am able to rewatch the movies I like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
It's been covered by the more serious posts in the thread, but yes, the issue is not that a film is necessarily -worse- when you know certain things about it, but that you're taking away an experience you can never get back in some cases, when a movie is crafted to purposely manipulate your expectations. The Prestige is a great example, because the film is partially commentary on how films are presented to an audience. It's great to watch something like The Prestige once you know what is going on and recognize how things were in front of your face the entire time, but it's also fun that first time in watching the film like the magic trick that it intends to be on the first watch. Going in knowing what happens is like observing a magician when you already know how they do the trick. You can be appreciative of the craft, but you aren't drawn in in the same manner, and miss the "how did he do this" response of seeing it without. There are case, like Usual Suspects, where there's nothing much to the movie besides the twist, but that's something else entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Shanty posted:Anyway, I don't mind having the plot of a movie spoiled for me. I think in this subforum there was someone who cuts trailers for a living and from what he said you are not in the minority. He said something like the best rated trailers recently give away so much plot so that moviegoers aren't surprised or get the wrong impression from a picture. Of course in reality we know that sometimes the way movies are advertised are not as they actually are, but there you go. I blame you for those 4 minute long trailers where the beginning, middle, ending, and all the best scenes and lines are spoiled.  Kidding, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 18:27
|
|