|
I'm not talking about the hyperbole of GBS posters or whatever. I'm just saying that some people derive greater enjoyment when things they don't expect occur in media, and therefore deriver a lesser degree of enjoyment when those things are revealed beforehand. I'm not sure how that is an objective untruth, any more than some people disliking cilantro and preferring meals prepared without cilantro being objectively untrue.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:In the real world, people are entitled to their opinions, but some opinions are wrong. Just because spoilers matter to you doesn't meant they actually matter. You can get really caremad about a lot of stupid poo poo on planet Earth. Sometimes it is limiting to do so. I don't believe the film is "ruined", but surely my experience of watching it is altered. If I know ahead of time that a character is going to die, I'm going to spending the movie with that in the back of my mind, and it provides a different viewing experience then if I didn't have that information. I should be able to experience the movie without any foreknowledge, if that's how I'd like to experience the movie. If I feel it's worth watching again after having that knowledge I can then do so with that altered experience. If you're saying that isn't two different experiences, then there isn't much else to say here. I just don't believe you and think you're being contrarian on purpose. Whether or not you care about the difference is a matter of opinion, and I don't consider either opinion "wrong", but I think it's a bit rude to try to push it upon others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:OP, how is your internet conversation specifically being stifled by trying to avoid spoilers? Your only example of this is the GBS spoiler thread titles, which are deliberate dick moves and not intended to engender discussion in any way. In my experience, it's pretty easy to not post spoilers. I don't like spoilers myself, so I don't watch trailers or read forum threads about stuff I'm interested in watching. I had to get off the forums when TFA was released because goons would discuss it anywhere, but I don't get the impression anyone really enjoyed every thread turning into a Star Wars thread for a week.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
zandert33 posted:I think it's a bit rude to try to push it upon others. I simply think it is wrong to worry about attaining some fantastical 'ideal viewing experience'. I have no intention of stopping you from worrying about this. You are welcome to continue doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Tone-policing people just because they don't agree with you isn't a convincing way of bringing them round to your way of thinking. I'm not forcing anyone to agree with me. And this is why I think you're rude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:Conversation is stifled because of the intensity of the SPOILERS!! attitude today. It's mutated from an understandable aversion to reading major twists and surprises ahead of time to a crusade against any information about the work being revealed before a hypothetical audience has a chance to see it. Try saying anything meaningful about a film's plot or characters without giving something away. It's impossible, so vagueness rules. I can see that, but if you're gonna post something that you realize people might consider a spoiler, why not just slap a spoiler tag on it even though it's not really one? You get to be as specific as you want and nobody's experience or expectations are ruined.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:I can see that, but if you're gonna post something that you realize people might consider a spoiler, why not just slap a spoiler tag on it even though it's not really one? You get to be as specific as you want and nobody's experience or expectations are ruined. For one, because spoilers aren't a binary thing. Someone might care about, say "Darth Vader is Luke's father" but not "The movie opens up on an ice planet". If you make trivial things spoilers, you're ironically making it more likely to make people spoiled.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:I can see that, but if you're gonna post something that you realize people might consider a spoiler, why not just slap a spoiler tag on it even though it's not really one? You get to be as specific as you want and nobody's experience or expectations are ruined. With regard to The Force Awakens, what constitutes a spoiler? Clearly, when we're limiting the idea to major plot points and surprises, the killing of Han Solo by his son Kylo Ren counts. This is not only the death of a beloved main character, but also a major plot point that influences the course of the rest of the film. The relationship between the two of them is a surprise as well, in that it is unexpected for a "good guy" to be the father of the villain. But what about more minor details of the film? Is the fact that Luke Skywalker is missing -- information conveyed in the opening crawl -- a spoiler? What about the first line of spoken dialogue? What about the fact that the forgettable minor character who says this line dies less than five minutes later? What about the visual similarity between the Republic of the prequels and the Republic in this film? What about the thematic relevance of this similarity? None of these are important plot points, and yet I have seen claims about all of them being spoilers somewhere on the internet. There are people who proudly didn't watch any trailers before seeing the film for the first time so they could see it with "an open mind" (a debatable claim, but whatever) and get worked up about seeing some minor detail unexpectedly on Twitter. Turns out everything is a spoiler to someone. Here's another look at the absurdity of spoilers: the Sicario thread. Early spoiler tag use was fine and considerate to readers looking for a hot take on release weekend. But the practice of tagging everything that could hypothetically trigger a spoiler complaint became so entrenched that it persisted even when all the new posts were by the same few posters writing to each other a month after wide release. Thankfully, the enthusiasm for discussion was high because the effort of trying to write without revealing anything important, considering whether what you wrote is a spoiler, and checking to be sure you made the right call about every word may have resulted in a considerably less rich discussion. *Note that I have to signal that you should stop engaging with me, stop receiving what I'm trying to communicate. If you choose not to click, the rest of the post is meaningless to you. But I want to you read it. If there's a chance no one will read it, why write in the first place? This is a fundamental struggle of communication, of course, but it is made more difficult by the obsession with spoilers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:In the real world, people are entitled to their opinions, but some opinions are wrong. Just because spoilers matter to you doesn't meant they actually matter. You can get really caremad about a lot of stupid poo poo on planet Earth. Sometimes it is limiting to do so. Many films rely on twists and turns in their plot to entice audiences and keep them guessing. This isn't that difficult to understand, even for a dullard like you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Many films rely on twists and turns in their plot to entice audiences and keep them guessing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:A dismal view of cinema. I steadfastly disagree Terrorist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
zandert33 posted:And this is why I think you're rude. Who cares? What is The Truth? Now here's a spoiler: The truth cannot be attained by ballbagging about the ideal viewing conditions, ideal knowledge/lack of it, etc - knowing what happens in advance does not alter a film's themes, or storytelling ability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Yaws posted:I steadfastly disagree Terrorist. I'm not saying narrative tricks are bad or cheap thrills or whatever, but the number of films that are just a rollercoaster ride of plot twists is very small. Most films that employ big twists have a lot of other things going for them, e.g. good cinematography or well-developed characters, that have value once the impact of seeing them for the first time has worn off. In this sense, it's hard to say a film "relies" on twists and turns to make it worth seeing -- they're one element in a list of good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Obviously there's a limit to how much you can censor yourself. I'd personally say that nothing in the second paragraph would constitute a spoiler, and if you're sensitive to that degree, the onus is on you to at the least not be on Twitter. I watched TFA knowing the most basic of details (there's a black stormtrooper, the bad guy has a claymore lightsaber), and I still considered myself to have gone in blind. I think the way details are discussed often makes it obvious that they're not spoilers. If you notice something looks like a spoiler, you could always tag it and then just point out that it's not really a spoiler. For the TFA example, you could use Luke is missing (not really a spoiler) versus Kylo is Ben Solo, son of Han and Leia (major TFA spoiler). There's a conversation to be had on what exactly constitutes a major spoiler and what is a minor or non-spoiler. I think movies eventually get to the point where major plot points become common knowledge, and there's precious few people who haven't watched, say, Terminator 2, but are interested in seeing it and don't already know the big twist. It's pretty much always lovely to drop big spoilers for TV shows, though, like the OP casually dropping bombs about Dexter and Buffy finales, and originally using the GBS GoT spoilers as an example of spoiler outrage. Obviously for Game of Thrones there's people who are invested in the show and don't know details from the books, and people who don't watch episodes as soon as they air, but even for an ended show like Dexter, that big spoiler is 48 hours into the show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:I'm not saying narrative tricks are bad or cheap thrills or whatever, but the number of films that are just a rollercoaster ride of plot twists is very small. Most films that employ big twists have a lot of other things going for them, e.g. good cinematography or well-developed characters, that have value once the impact of seeing them for the first time has worn off. In this sense, it's hard to say a film "relies" on twists and turns to make it worth seeing -- they're one element in a list of good stuff. Obviously one can appreciate twists in a film as well as good cinematography and well-developed characters. Movies are stories and knowing plot details and the outcome beforehand undercuts the tension.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:Obviously there's a limit to how much you can censor yourself. I'd personally say that nothing in the second paragraph would constitute a spoiler, and if you're sensitive to that degree, the onus is on you to at the least not be on Twitter. I watched TFA knowing the most basic of details (there's a black stormtrooper, the bad guy has a claymore lightsaber), and I still considered myself to have gone in blind. I think the way details are discussed often makes it obvious that they're not spoilers. OK so not everyone is going to be satisfied with any bar for spoiler alerts, and it's up to the individual to make a common-sense assessment on a case-by-case basis, fine. IMO none of those things are spoilers, because 'spoilers', like movies 'raping your childhood', are an imaginary injury meant to displace an entirely internal dissatisfaction onto the outside world, and the kind of person who thinks "I enjoyed that movie but I could have enjoyed it, if not more, in a somehow different way, had I had different experiences, but that right has been forever taken from me" is a meaningful grievance is not going to be satisfied by any set of conversational constraints you could devise. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
I read somewhere some psychologists actually did an experiment wherein they found that spoilers don't really ruin the pleasure of watching a movie. http://www.wired.com/2011/08/spoilers-dont-spoil-anything/
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Again, that study shows a tendency for people to enjoy short stories slightly more if they're spoiled ahead of time. The actual study does say that each individual tested preferred spoiled stories to unspoiled ones, and does not examine anything that the test subjects have been invested in for more than 20 minutes. The author of that article somehow extrapolates from this that obviously everyone enjoys media the same way he does, and people just refuse to realize this fact. A Wizard of Goatse posted:IMO none of those things are spoilers, because 'spoilers', like movies 'raping your childhood', are an imaginary injury meant to displace an entirely internal dissatisfaction onto the outside world, and the kind of person who thinks "I enjoyed that movie but I could have enjoyed it, if not more, in a somehow different way, had I had different experiences, but that right has been forever taken from me" is a meaningful grievance is not going to be satisfied by any set of conversational constraints you could devise. Instead of waxing about hypotheticals, let's think of the opposite position. Have you never read a mystery novel and thought "I wonder who did it? My money's on the butler, but there's obviously something going on with the cook?" Have you never gone to a movie you knew precious little about, and suddenly had the very premise of it unexpectedly change midway through? Have you never followed a TV series and been shocked when a character is suddenly killed off? It's pretty hard to objectively claim that you enjoy something less because it's been spoiled, but it's pretty easy to be aware that you tend to enjoy things more when they're unexpected. Have you literally never derived satisfaction from something you did not expect occurring in a piece of media?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
If the brief moment of a surprised 'oh, something unexpected happened' is the only thing keeping you going, you have lovely taste. If the film is more engrossing than that, it doesn't really need the moments of surprise. I was spoiled on what happens in Force Awakens, but that actually made it easier to look at the emotional turmoil the characters were going through as they made those choices. I didn't get to have a 'first time' experience where the plot is all new and everything surprises me, but as a human that consumes media I wasn't really going to be surprised anyway. To paraphrase Dan Harmon, humans have become like little render farms who can guess your twist many episodes before they even get set up in the story. The onus is now to make something that's good even if you know what's going to happen. This also means that, inherently, nothing is unspoiled any more. We're too well-equipped for that to really be possible. The study's basic point is that there's more to storytelling than the literal plot, and knowing it in advance can actually be a boon to further grasping the themes or understanding the narrative of a piece of art. If you looked at the study and your response was 'hur dur, it was short stories and not movies so everything it shows us about how humans react to storytelling is completely meaningless!' you are wrong and will pay for your crimes
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
You're basically strawmanning by creating a false dichotomy. The argument is: "spoiling key moments in films can take away an entire viewing experience from that person that can never be attained again because foreknowledge can alter the emotional impact of the narrative." There is no way to disagree with that, and you know it, so instead of conceding that, you're strawmanning the argument by changing it into a binary "it ruins the entire movie" so you don't have to concede the other viewpoint. Everyone sees this, btw.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Darko posted:You're basically strawmanning by creating a false dichotomy. you've stolen my experience of a life without having read this loving post and I demand recompense A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:If the brief moment of a surprised 'oh, something unexpected happened' is the only thing keeping you going, you have lovely taste. If the film is more engrossing than that, it doesn't really need the moments of surprise. I was spoiled on what happens in Force Awakens, but that actually made it easier to look at the emotional turmoil the characters were going through as they made those choices. I didn't get to have a 'first time' experience where the plot is all new and everything surprises me, but as a human that consumes media I wasn't really going to be surprised anyway. To paraphrase Dan Harmon, humans have become like little render farms who can guess your twist many episodes before they even get set up in the story. The onus is now to make something that's good even if you know what's going to happen. This also means that, inherently, nothing is unspoiled any more. We're too well-equipped for that to really be possible. Again, have you literally never been surprised by any piece of media? Have you never had a reaction stronger than "oh, I guess that happened?" Hbomberguy posted:The study's basic point is that there's more to storytelling than the literal plot, and knowing it in advance can actually be a boon to further grasping the themes or understanding the narrative of a piece of art. If you looked at the study and your response was 'hur dur, it was short stories and not movies so everything it shows us about how humans react to storytelling is completely meaningless!' you are wrong and will pay for your crimes If you're wondering what my response to that study was, you could try reading what I posted. I'll be happy to discuss any specific points you might disagree on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:Again, have you literally never been surprised by any piece of media? Have you never had a reaction stronger than "oh, I guess that happened?" much like there is no exact preparation for watching a movie that would allow you to be transported to your perfect virginal Platonic ideal of a first movie-watching experience, like God intended you to have, there is no exact melodramatic rephrasing of this question that's going to change the answer to the one you want. Modify your expectations accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:Again, have you literally never been surprised by any piece of media? Have you never had a reaction stronger than "oh, I guess that happened? It's not called 'I hereby claim I have never been surprised.' Of course I've enjoyed being surprised by things, but this experience is not so utterly important that I expect all discussion to curb itself around me. This is how adults function. Darko posted:The argument is: "spoiling key moments in films can take away an entire viewing experience from that person that can never be attained again because foreknowledge can alter the emotional impact of the narrative." I haven't changed it to 'it ruins the entire movie'. While we're throwing logical fallacies around for the sake of sounding smart, nice strawman bro. I made the statement that, if it does, you're an idiot, but if it doesn't, then why do you give such a massive poo poo about it? Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:
Too bad? It matters to some people and if you want to be nice, you'll make a good faith effort to use a *reasonable* amount of discretion. I personally don't think swearing should matter to people but when I'm at the office, I keep it polite even though it ~hamstrings my personal expression~ because I think it's valuable to make reasonable accommodations for people's comfort and enjoyment when possible. That's ALSO how adults act. That said, if someone considers casting decisions, filming locations, or other production elements to be on par with "Darth Vader is Luke's father and ESB ends with Lando betraying Solo and Luke being dismembered!", then THAT person is not being reasonable by expecting a discussion thread to be devoid of chat about those things. That seems quite a bit rarer than lazy people who don't want be bothered to use spoiler tags and who dress it up with high-minded pronouncements about what "really matters" and what's "actually important." Frankly, this thread seems to be full of people that act like they can't tell the difference between major plot spoilers and minor production reveals and people being obtuse or mildly autistic about the variety of ways people enjoy consuming media. It takes a low amount of effort to not spoiler major plot elements and pleasurable surprises in a discussion thread for recent or forthcoming media. It's easy. Just be nice and ignore the .01% of jerks who claim casting decisions are spoilers. I remember one of my wife's friends wanted to show me Firefly because I'd never seen it. She then constantly spoiled things that were going to happen because she's one of those horrible people who can't shut up during a show going "Ooh this is good, ooh look look this is great, ooh you're gonna love this upcoming fight scene oh boy i just love what happens next" and bragging about how "she could tell right away the first time that this was actually that, you'll see". I told her I prefer to watch a show unspoiled and she said, "Well, you know they published a study saying spoilers don't really affect your enjoyment" with the biggest  face. She pretty much ruined the experience for me and I put an end to Firefly nights with her because of it. This is my experience of the  "Well, actually..." brigade in real life.
That Dang Dad fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The thread is called 'spoilers don't ruin movies'. Are we allowed to expand the discussion beyond the thread title? I don't think anyone ITT has claimed that spoilers do "ruin" movies, only that not being spoiled changes how you experience it. You even admit, with some reluctance, that this is the case. Hbomberguy posted:And my response is 'I don't think that experience is fundamentally important, but regardless of anyone's personal views, I don't see why everyone's ability to discuss a film should be hamstrung to protect babies who haven't seen the film and yet want to take part in the discussion of a film they haven't seen' What about people who are not trying to take part in the discussion? The OP uses unprompted GoT spoilers as its only example. Do you think it's too stifling if someone tells you you not to shout "Snape kill Dumbledore" at people standing in line to purchase the latest Harry Potter?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:And my response is 'I don't think that experience is fundamentally important, but regardless of anyone's personal views, I don't see why everyone's ability to discuss a film should be hamstrung to protect babies who haven't seen the film and yet want to take part in the discussion of a film they haven't seen'. You stated this: quote:If the brief moment of a surprised 'oh, something unexpected happened' is the only thing keeping you going, you have lovely taste. If the film is more engrossing than that, it doesn't really need the moments of surprise. In response to a discussion about it by default changing an experience for some people. You're arguing against a point nobody is talking about. That's not talking about fallacies to "sound smart" (ad hominem, btw), it's defining what you're doing, which is creating a strawman argument that no one you're talking about it with holds or is talking about. Earlier in this thread, Psycho, The Prestige, and others were used as prime examples. Many of us have never experienced the shock and awe reactions that people in the 60s were lucky to experience when they first saw Psycho because the major shocking moments have become so firmly entrenched in pop culture (and it changed how movies were shaped since). We get the joy of being able to analyze it after the fact, yes, but unlike our parents/grandparents, we don't get to experience those emotions AND analyze it. They get to look at it knowing what happens AND look at it from the lens of not knowing - we don't. Therefore, knowing this, it's good to err on the side of not being a dick when talking about media. You can be a dick if you want to be a dick and take away experiences from people, but you're being a dick, and it's probably better to not be a dick. I also don't take "ruin movies" seriously when people use those terms (which most aren't, in this thread). Most people on the Internet talk in short-form hyperbole, so arguing the hyperbole as if it's the actual opinion is often useless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Darko posted:Therefore, knowing this, it's good to err on the side of not being a dick when talking about media. You can be a dick if you want to be a dick and take away experiences from people, but you're being a dick, and it's probably better to not be a dick. I get not being a dick about spoilers, but I don't get using spoiler tags in the Star Wars thread for a month after the film was released.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:Are we allowed to expand the discussion beyond the thread title? I don't think anyone ITT has claimed that spoilers do "ruin" movies, only that not being spoiled changes how you experience it. You even admit, with some reluctance, that this is the case. You know what changes how you experience a movie the most? Watching it. How terrible it must be to live in a world where every piece of art has an expiration date, where to understand something is to destroy it. A world where ideas are as sand...
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Anal Surgery posted:Too bad? It matters to some people and if you want to be nice, you'll make a good faith effort to use a *reasonable* amount of discretion. I personally don't think swearing should matter to people but when I'm at the office, I keep it polite even though it ~hamstrings my personal expression~ because I think it's valuable to make reasonable accommodations for people's comfort and enjoyment when possible. That's ALSO how adults act. quote:I remember one of my wife's friends wanted to show me Firefly because I'd never seen it. She then constantly spoiled things that were going to happen because she's one of those horrible people who can't shut up during a show going "Ooh this is good, ooh look look this is great, ooh you're gonna love this upcoming fight scene oh boy i just love what happens next" and bragging about how "she could tell right away the first time that this was actually that, you'll see". I told her I prefer to watch a show unspoiled and she said, "Well, you know they published a study saying spoilers don't really affect your enjoyment" with the biggest
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:I get not being a dick about spoilers, but I don't get using spoiler tags in the Star Wars thread for a month after the film was released. This in particular is v weird to me. Surely anyone who deeply cares about not getting spoiled would take the effort to see the movie asap. And if they somehow could not, then why the hell are they reading the thread?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:
That's really the point - there's two questions being asked: Is an unspoiled an environment a factor that allows unique experiences (the answer: yes, although it's not the only one*), and if it is, then how much should we accommodate that environment? For the question of accommodation, you have to consider space and time. For space, you're asking which areas should be spoiler friendly or not. The typical case here is having a "spoiler" area where people can freely discuss things, and the default is to not be spoiled (there are exceptions though, like the Game of Thrones thread in TVIV). For time, the question is "how long should we attempt to preserve a property's unspoiled environment?" At one end, there are people who want to yell out "Snape Kills Dumbledore"; we can see this is bad. At the other, you have people who are mad at casually revealing the plot twist of Knights of the Old Republic, despite that game being 12 years old. It's fair to say there should be a reasonable accommodation for both, but neither should really be too comprehensive. Having a dedicated "Star Wars spoiler thread" after the movie has been out for a while makes no sense (which is why it was closed), and having to tag spoilers about (eg) Spiderman 3 nearly a decade on makes no sense either. *For example, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind gives a much different experience immediately after a breakup. A breakup is non-unique (usually) but is still fairly rare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
I read a study some time ago that claimed people actually rate media that's been spoiled higher than if they hadn't been spoiled, even though they think they will enjoy it less. Personally I think it depends on the work itself. If the plot is based on twists and turns that occur externally to the characters (event-driven), spoilers can ruin a movie or TV show, sure. But what about character-driven films? How do you spoil something like Twelve Angry Men or The Big Lebowski? In the former case, you basically know what the ending is, but your enjoyment of the film comes from watching how it plays out. In the latter case, the plot is so convoluted and there's so many little irrelevant details that I can't imagine someone would hate the film if you "spoiled" it. Time is also a factor, I suppose. Finding something out about a movie a few months ago, with enough time to forget it, is different from somebody explaining a plot point right before the scene occurs. -------- Funny anecdote edit: I had the plot point of Star Wars VII spoiled for me, but when I told my friend before seeing the film, "I heard a spoiler for TFA," he told me he heard a spoiler that turned out to be fake (he had already seen it at that point). So when the scene in question arrived I wasn't really sure what to expect. His comment somewhat negated the spoiler because he tricked me into thinking it might be fake, which it ultimately wasn't. So the moral of the story is, if your buddies get spoiled, trick them by saying it's a fake spoiler. kalel fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Bear in mind, I don't go out of my way to spoil people. I just don't go out of my way to avoid spoilers, and actually read them most of the time because I don't think they matter. A person can think something is dumb (ie, caring about spoilers) and let them do it regardless. I'm not going to go yell 'snape kills dumbledore' at people, but I knew this happened before I read the book, and all it did was give me the space to appreciate the story and the characters in a way I can normally only do properly when I read things a second time. In a sense, I think spoilers are good. I forget the study but people who read the synopsis of a book before actually reading it tend to enjoy it better because they can put the base plot aside and see the other stuff. Heart of Darkness, the best book ever written and I will kill you if you think otherwise, was spoiled for me simply by nature of being the basis for so many other cool things, long before I actually read it, and it remains wonderful. The reason people appreciate things like Shakespeare and other early literature is because we already know the conclusion, and can therefore explore the point of the text in greater detail without worrying if everyone's up to speed on what happens in Romeo and Juliet. The only way to really reach this level with modern texts is to have specific spoiler-accepted areas (but these places run the risk of devolving into 'oh boy a thing happened and I am reacting to it in real time!' and not being all that interesting imo), or wait a hundred years until everyone knows what happens in GoT naturally due to popcultural osmosis. Darko posted:In response to a discussion about it by default changing an experience for some people. You're arguing against a point nobody is talking about. Q:Is it a terrible, very bad thing that someone's experience is changed by knowing what is happening in advance? Is it important to preserve this 'original experience'? If yes, I don't think I agree. I literally can't, because my experience is improved, even when I do lose that split second of 'oh!' when something I didn't expect happens. If no, then spoilers aren't a big deal, are they?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Why is it incumbent on the people who have seen the text to protect the people who haven't seen the text from spoilers? If you're invested in experiencing the emotional impact of a text's plot twist, and that text is out in the wild and readily accessible, then why isn't it squarely on you to be diligent in avoiding spoilers? We've kind of expanded the discussion beyond the initial example(s), though. I don't think that anyone would call someone a dick for talking about Star Wars freely a month after it came out. However, people that post "shocking moments" widely on social media for TV and movies IMMEDIATELY after seeing it as a status update are being dickish. The line varies depending on the situation, but rule of thumb is basically the line where the onus on avoiding spoilers shifts to a reasonable level. And also, what -is- a spoiler shifts greatly as well. Most people would not call someone a dick for mentioning that Han Solo is in Star Wars since that was part of the media blitz of the movie, but talking about the "truth" of Angier/Borden/etc. in The Prestige to someone who you don't know saw the movie is another level entirely. Darko fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
SciFiDownBeat posted:Funny anecdote edit: I had the plot point of Star Wars VII spoiled for me, but when I told my friend before seeing the film, "I heard a spoiler for TFA," he told me he heard a spoiler that turned out to be fake (he had already seen it at that point). So when the scene in question arrived I wasn't really sure what to expect. His comment somewhat negated the spoiler because he tricked me into thinking it might be fake, which it ultimately wasn't. That leads to an interesting situation - say you've gotten spoiled about three elements of the movie, however two of them are fake. Is that not a unique viewing experience? Should we try to post fake spoilers everywhere so people will be surprised when they're not actually in the movie?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That leads to an interesting situation - say you've gotten spoiled about three elements of the movie, however two of them are fake. Is that not a unique viewing experience? Should we try to post fake spoilers everywhere so people will be surprised when they're not actually in the movie? You're still affecting their viewing of the movie by weighting it with distracting anticipation. In fact, even saying a movie even has a twist can mess with a viewing because people naturally start looking for cues when they wouldn't necessarily be looking otherwise (if the movie is crafted in order to skew with viewer perceptions, I'd say that seeing it as intended once provides a completely different outlook).
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Spoilers for Pride And Prejudice And Zombies: there are no zombies, the movie is a shot-for-shot, faithful adaptation of Jane Austen's original novel
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Darko posted:You're still affecting their viewing of the movie by weighting it with distracting anticipation. Yes, but it's a unique one that's not reproducible again. Just as unique as "going in blind". The assumption seems to be that the intent of the film's creator(s) is more important than other's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
SciFiDownBeat posted:Spoilers for Pride And Prejudice And Zombies: there are no zombies, the movie is a shot-for-shot, faithful adaptation of Jane Austen's original novel The original characters were metaphorical zombies tho
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:00
|
|