Spoiler Discussion - (spoiler free)

[andrewducker]

In the last couple of days I've been in discussion with a couple of different people about spoilers. One of them about BSG season 2 (now two years old) and the other about HP:Half Blood Prince (now four years old), with them considering that as they'd experienced them years ago, they couldn't possibly be considered spoilers.

Which is the exact opposite of how I feel about it. Because there are movies I still haven't seen fronm the 1950s, where discussion of the twist in the tale would spoil the movie for me. And I'm very aware that the majority of people who go to see the new HP movie won't have read the book.

To me, spoilers are all about politeness. If you tell someone the end/twist of something they didn't know, and will possibly experience in the future, when they didn't want to know, then you've spoiled that experience for them. I remember the feeling of watching Empire Strikes Back and discovering that Han and Chewied were lovers. The shock and surprise at the moment of reveal was an integral part of the experience for me, and taking it away from people that haven't seen the movie yet is just plain rude.

Now, you can argue that it being years old, the chances that people on your friends list haven't seen Empire Strikes Back is low. Which is true if you're posting friends-only and have nobody under the age of 20 on your friends list. But it's not like the olden days, when a movie would appear, and then vanish again, when TV that had made the rounds was lost. Nowadays I can go out and buy box sets for TV made before I was born, and watch it entirely fresh. There are more hours of TV and movies out there than I have time to watch in my whole life, and the chances are that some will be watched years out of synch with their original release. And I'd really appreciate you not telling me the details before I do!

Obviously I consider all of the following to be spoilers. I'm curious whether you do too. If you don't then I'd love to know why...

[Poll #1430090]

Also: NO SPOILERS IN THE COMMENTS!

Comments

[andrewducker]

See, I disagree strongly with the last point. People change. People grow up liking one kind of thing and then decide they like something different. People get introduced to a new genre late on, and then go around devouring lots of it.

The point being that you can't make assumptions about what is going to spoil a movie for someone. Telling them that they shouldn't have their experiences spoiled by your actions sounds ridiculous to me. Either their experience was spoiled, or it was not. You telling them otherwise sounds like paternalism.

I'm happy to agree that _most_ people will have seen Empire, but three people have already commented on this post that they haven't. And you never know when they might decide that maybe their friends are right, and give it a go. Unless they've said "Go ahead, tell me how it ends." then I think that posting the end of the movie in a public place is rude.

[matgb]

I mostly agree with this--Andy has a point about the surprise factor, but if the movie is reliant on one or two key points, then it's not very good in the first place, for the most part.

There are exceptions (the ones you list below would be in my list), but they're a lot more rare than people make out.

Then again, I've read a complete plot summary of the last series of BSG despite not having seen it yet and being a fan overall--I'm generally the opposite of spoiler averse.

[matgb]

But overall, Empire isn't about the ending--it's a mid point film, written as such, etc.

Now, if I were to write a post about Empire (which wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility), I would make sure to say at the top that I'd be discussing the plot and assume readers have seen it. But to write a post about Empire and not actually discuss the film at this stage when it's 30 years old would be a waste of my time.

A review on release shouldn't talk about such things, but a literary review on the film many years later would be remiss not to.

And the endings are important parts of the film, but if the film relied upon them for impact, it wouldn't be the damn fine film it actually is.

[nmg.livejournal.com]

What she said.

[nmg.livejournal.com]

Well put - I'm similarly of the opinion that the journey is often more interesting than the destination, at least as far as the narrative arts go.

[nmg.livejournal.com]

You are a precious and delicate snowflake, and I claim my five pounds.

[andrewducker]

I would make sure to say at the top that I'd be discussing the plot and assume readers have seen it.

So you'd be posting spoiler warnings. Which is all anyone's been asking for :->

[andrewducker]

You mean I care about things and have emotions?

Yes, I am glad to say this is the case.

What would be the point of watching things if I didn't care about the plot? What's the point of putting a twist into plot if it's not to experience it as you reach it?

Why would I want to go through life not caring about the media I'm experiencing?

I really don't see any point to your comment at all except for namecalling. Is there more to it than that? Or are you just bored and picking fights?

[e-halmac.livejournal.com]

Absolutely, to both points!

I must say I would never maliciously tell someone a spoiler. But I clearly have a different idea about what one is, as I love knowing the ending.

And, to be fair to spoilers, I _personally_ don't think that the twist in Empire is one that would have spoilered the movie for me. Now the twist in Sixth Sense - yep, did not see that one coming, and it made the movie.

[henriksdal.livejournal.com]

in the past few years, I saw for the first time The Sound Of Music and the original Pyscho. My enjoyment of both was huge, because no-one had told me what happens at the end of Pyscho (really! It was BRILLIANT!) and, possible even more brilliantly, no-one had told me there were Nazis in The Sound Of Music. I spent the rest of the film secretly hoping for giant robots and ninjas.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

Again, this seems bizarrely mechanistic (as does meowpurrr's orginal and opposite suggestion).

That said, if the Harry Potter books were reduced to 120 pages it would be a blessing. Luckily the films - through skillful adaptation - manage to preserve what is important and enjoyable about the books whilst freeing them from Rowling's poor writing.

[e-halmac.livejournal.com]

Having just re-read this, with the idea of completing the poll, I realised I wouln't find any of the above spoilers. More than half are relevent - I have read or seen them - and wouldn't have cared if they'd been spoiled. But (as I've said below) I'm weird like that.

Have never seen BSG though, but I'm been persuaded in to it by everyone I know going on and on about it. It must be good, and, I'm pretty sure, just my thing.

[nmg.livejournal.com]

I'm never going to watch them because I've been spoilered all over the place

I find that quite an odd attitude; isn't that a bit like saying that you're not interested in travelling to Gizeh because you've already seen a picture of the pyramids?

The notion that a entire play/film/book can be effectively summarised by some subset of its parts seems overly reductive. For example, Waiting for Godot is not about whether or not Godot finally turns up, but what Vladimir and Estragon talk about while they're waiting. Similarly, the meaning of Kane's dying words in Citizen Kane is quite clearly not the sole key to understanding the life of a complex and conflicted character.

[andrewducker]

As someone who loved all of the HP books (well, I liked the first two, I found they got better as they went along), I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Especially as the last couple of films have felt like cut-down versions of longer movies, with painfully awkward pacing in parts, and large visible slash-marks on the screen where chunks of plot were cut out.

This is, of course, just my opinion. I'm aware that other people prefer the movies to the books. I don't think either of them is perfect, and it largely comes down to taste.

[andrewducker]

I think it depends on what you watch them for, and what kind of movie/TV series they are. If they're all about the character development then knowing the plot isn't a major problem. If they're plot-heavy, with a lotof the impact coming from the reveals then obviously it plays a bigger part. I'd say that Star Wars was both, and that there was plenty to enjoy even if you do know what's coming up.

[broin.livejournal.com]

How much time? Are there not books and movies you've been meaning to catch up on...?

[nmg.livejournal.com]

As I've said elsewhere, the focus on plot seems to be an overly reductive (some might say single-minded) attitude towards narrative. Yes, plot matters, but there's more than plot.

Yes, revealing the identity of a deceased character in a popular children's book to the people queueing for the midnight sales opening of that book is crass and uncalled-for. However, when a work is old enough for aspects of it to be considered common cultural knowledge (as in the Simpsons test, or perhaps when choice phrases from the work become common terms), the care that some people expect from others so as not to offend their delicate no-spoilers sensibilities is unreasonable ([Bad username or site: simont/ @ livejournal.com] says more here, far better than I could).

And yes, the notion of common cultural knowledge is variable and context-dependent. I wouldn't expect the man on the Clapham omnibus to know the denouement of Blake's 7, but I'd have a reasonable expectation that he would know that Romeo and Juliet don't make it all the way to the end of the play. Conversely, I'd expect a British SF fan to be more likely to know know about B7.

[ophelia-complex.livejournal.com]

Han and Chewied were lovers

>What!?!? how did I miss that?!? (yes have seen it several times)?

Is this some sort of slash fiction joke?

[lpetrazickis.livejournal.com]

Uh, Hamlet is a Shakespearean tragedy. All Shakespearean tragedies end the same way, just like all Shakespearean comedies end the same way. It's a formula.

Fancy-pants people are welcome to substitute "Aristotelian" for "Shakespearean" in the above paragraph.

I can't think of anything about the end of Hamlet that would be a spoiler. Yes, considering the histories of the Scandinavian countries, the geopolitical situation was atypical, but it certainly wasn't the focus of the story. There was nothing surprising in the bits that Shakespeare or, at least, my high school English teachers cared about.

[redshira.livejournal.com]

Well, to be fair, I hadn't watched them because I wasn't that interested in the first place; however, James had almost persuaded me into it when somehow, in the space of a couple of weeks, various different people told me enough about the films - and I saw a particularly gruesome clip - that I lost the little interest I had.

The notion that a entire play/film/book can be effectively summarised by some subset of its parts seems overly reductive.

It does indeed, but that's not what I'm saying. I don't often watch films and don't have a telly because I'm generally not interested, and something has to really pull me in and make me want to find out what happens next/what such-and-such meant by x thing, and if I've already heard stuff then it's just not going to hold my interest because I'm not curious. There are exceptions such as Harry Potter, where I'm invested enough in the (for want of a better word) Potterverse to want to watch the films, but if someone had spoiled me for any of the books, that would have ruined the entire series for me. Then again, I am very all-or-nothing by nature, which has its downsides, this being one of them, I suppose.

[andrewducker]

I needed a spoiler that wasn't just untrue, but patently unbelievably untrue...

[andrewducker]

Hamlet is a Shakespearean tragedy. All Shakespearean tragedies end the same way

So, two facts I didn't know when I saw Hamlet. Benefits of not having studied Shakespeare in school, nor read any. I've now seen a several on the stage/cinema, and managed to not be spoiled for any of them.

[andrewducker]

the focus on plot seems to be an overly reductive

I do think this is a bit of a strawman. I don't see people focussing on the plot exclusively. The main difference is that plot can be revealed ahead of time, whereas there's nothing similar you can do to make the camerawork less effective, or the lighting not as good. I enjoy things on multiple levels, including the plot, but the plot is the only one that's spoiled by people telling me about it in advance, so that's the one you hear the complaining about.

Conversely, I'd expect a British SF fan to be more likely to know know about B7.

Well, an old British fan. Young people, not so much.

[natural20.livejournal.com]

There are, but if I was really worried about being spoiled then, considering the information age in which we now live, I'd prioritise it above other stuff.

That said, and andrewducker will see this too, I will admit that a) my initial comment was a little harsh, for which I apologise, but b) this also stems from me not really caring all that much. There will be other stories, thankfully lots of them and I still gain great enjoyment from re-experiencing stories I already know the end of, spoilers simply aren't a concern. I do, however, acknowledge that not everyone thinks the same as me. That said, I will never apologise for revealing the end of something like Hamlet or Star Wars or the like.

[0olong.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, I'm in the position of still not having seen Citizen Kane, though I've been meaning to for years and years. Somehow it just never comes up as a film I might watch with people. Maybe it wouldn't matter if I knew how it ends, but the fact is that right now I haven't a clue and on the whole I'm glad I don't - is this surprising?