For the record, I love spoilers. After Star Wars came out I kept asking people to spoil it for me and no one would. (I think most people were all like, wtf I couldn't possibly do that because, well...they hate spoilers.) It's kind of fun to ask people to spoil things. They don't know how to react.
The article even kind of lays out the why behind being OK with spoilers:
- “The Bachelor” is a competition in the sense that several female participants are fighting for one prize, but it is often more compelling as narrative drama than as a contest.
It's like that, but for everything. What happens isn't nearly half so important as how the story is told, IMHO at least. (Of course, on the other hand, if I know something is going to happen in a narrative that I strongly disagree with, I'm inclined to turn off/throw away whatever material it is I'm consuming.)
_refugee_ is half right. Robert McKee argued that the difference between a good storyteller and a bad storyteller is the good storyteller can keep you enthralled with tales of their commute while the bad storyteller can bore you with the death of their children. Plot has fuckall to do with it - Polti argued in the 1890s that there are only 36 basic plots. Booker says there's seven. One of the Greeks, can't remember which, put the number at 40-something. Doesn't really matter - there's a consensus that there aren't that many tales to tell, it's all in the telling. I agree with you though - the narrator needs to be able to present her narrative as she sees fit, free from the external influence of Steve the Twitter Twit and his phonebank of disgruntled story producers. Because really - the ending doesn't fucking matter, it's how the tale is told and I'm sorry, "Steve", whoever he may be, is a shittier storyteller than the author, the producer, the editor, the whoever-it-is that is ultimately responsible for the primary art. "I am your father" is the linchpin around which Empire pivots. If you don't see it coming, it rocks your world. If you do, you're watching a wheel spin. Rosebud isn't a sled, Rosebud is the lost childhood driving the actions of a reclusive billionaire. If you know Crying Game coming in, it's an awkward art film. If you don't, it's a landmark piece of cinema. The films themselves are invulnerable. They are not damaged in the least by your prior knowledge of their arcs and turning points. Your experience with them, however, is crippled. The only one suffering is you. If spoilers were all that great, why would we care what the score of the game we missed was prior to watching it on Tivo? People who enjoy spoilers are people who hate art almost as much as they hate artists. Anyone who prefers the half-hearted recap of the disinterested amateur as much as the full-bore artistic presentation is suffering from a serious deficiency of wonder.
I assume you don't watch movies twice, then. Or revisit favorite books, either. I mean, after all, you know what's going to happen... If "what happened" was really the thing that made people care about anything involving plot, everything would be disposable after the first encounter.
How many times can you experience something the first time? How many times can you experience something again? Your approach has you experiencing something "again" every time and "the first time" never. You're right - foreknowledge is inevitable once you've experienced something even once. Doesn't that make the act of experiencing something with no foreknowledge all the more precious?
That's exactly what I was thinking. Why on earth would anyone want to deprive themselves of experiencing something for the first time? Yes, any movie that's only good the first time probably isn't a very good movie, but that doesn't mean that watching a movie without prior knowledge is worthless.
I may have been a bit hyperbolic, but your second remark only further confirms my interpretation. Comparing it to losing your virginity is an incredibly bad analogy. The quality of sex depends on you just as much as the other person, while the movie remains the same regardless of how many times you watch it. I wanted to pick apart your analogy more, but it's just so incredibly bad I can't be bothered, and I feel that kleinbl00 stated the case for watching things unspoiled better than I would have anyway.
I gave you an analogy equal in quality to your comment. What you get out of the movie depends on who you are when you watch it. I believe that movies, like sex, can improve and gain deeper meaning (or depth; as well as potentially grant more satisfaction) as a result of repeated encounters. That is the point of my analogy. The first time (viewing a film or gettin' it in) is bound to have a certain je ne sais quoi about it that no following time will ever possess. However, that in no way confers any measure of quality to that first time. It makes it special, not good. That is the point of my analogy. Your comment about sex taking two people is taking the analogy, and refusing to see the point. It would be like if you said "When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras," and me responding, "What if I just leave when I hear foot-beats?" Sure, sex takes two people and the quality of it does depend in some part (but not an equal part) on your partner. You want to apply that to movies, take "partner" and replace it with "director" or "actors" or "writers" or "producers" or whatever you want. The quality of a single film stays the same, yes, just as the quality of a single instance of sex would stay the same. But a Michael Bay movie is not a Tarantino flick is not a Cohen Bros. film. Quality of the movie depends on who makes it as much as how you experience and interpret it. And as for the viewer, where they are in life is going to impact how they receive the film. You can't put the same foot in the same river twice. - The river changes, but so do you.
Fair enough. I'll ignore the sex analogy, and I'll instead try to add something to the discussion you were having with kleinbl00: It seems to me that your reason for using spoilers is that you want to avoid bad works (henceforth I will just use movies as the example, but the same applies to books, TV shows, etc.). This isn't completely off the mark, but what I have an issue with is that it sounds like you're using it too much. It's true that you can avoid some bad movies by having them spoiled, but by doing that, you're also depriving yourself of the fresh experience of a genuinely good movie. Isn't this throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Sometimes, the suspense being built up can only be fully enjoyed once. That's not to say that it can't be enjoyed again, if the movie is genuinely good, but the emotional involvement is often dulled a little on subsequent viewings. By having everything spoiled, you are missing out on this heightened tension which is rooted in not knowing what's going to happen next. I'd argue that while it may be less of an intellectual excercise than watching a movie several times so you can get more details, it's a valuable EMOTIONAL experience. Isn't emotion the main component of art? The technical and intellectual aspects can be pleasing in their own right, but in my opinion they should be there to heighten, and add weight to, the emotional impact. Some movies can be quite dense, to the point where they only become fully enjoyable upon multiple viewings, but this is by no means the rule, and as you become a more experienced and sophisticated viewer, you can handle more and more complex works on the first go. The ones that you can't, you can just watch again if you think they're worth it, or read a critique/interpretation right after viewing them. Allow me to indulge in some armchair psychology: I think you like to have things spoiled so you can have more control over your experience. You fear wasting time on a sub-par work, and so you spoil all works, good and bad, for yourself, and the result is that you miss out on the highs of experiencing a great movie without prior knowledge, while simultaneously avoiding wasting your time on a disappointment. That is your prerogative. At the risk of sounding patronising, I suggest that you let go of these fears, and revel in the highs and lows that come with the loss of control. My intent isn't to put you down or anything, I'm just trying to express what I think are the advantages of watching things unspoiled. PS: Watching a bad movie can actually be quite enjoyable in its own right, if you afterwards try to describe WHY it's bad. I often go off on rants to my friends about how shit a movie is, and why, and I find that to be tremendously enjoyable.I gave you an analogy equal in quality to your comment.
To quote myself: For what it's worth, I frequently watch horror movies (if well done, capable of building great tension) and almost never spoil them. This is honestly usually because I don't preplan what I'm going to watch, I just throw it on, and then I sit back and enjoy the movie until it's done. I don't spoil things all the time by any means. I tend to start gently batting at my movie companions as the tension level rises. They usually find it amusing. I get that thrill and understand it. I think generally that horror seems to fulfill this urge in me and outside of horror, I don't want it. Just surmising. I would also say that the interpretation that I spoil things and then, instead of focusing on plot, focus on storytelling and technique, is not really accurate. I still focus on the plot and what's happening. I may know the broad strokes when I have spoiled something but I don't know the details and I care very much about details - I am one of those people that watches everything with subtitles on because I hate to miss even a single word, even though single lines of dialogue really are not that important to one's overall understanding of a movie. But I think knowing the broad strokes enables me to pay more attention to the fine details of the plot. To show myself: I am what I am, and I know what I am. I embrace my nature. P.S.: I have some favorite bad movies. And I find that discussions about media that you dislike - be it a book, a movie, or whatever - can actually help you realize more quickly and with more understanding both what you like, and what in general makes examples of that media strong, or weak. Book club discussions are awful when everyone likes the book. There is nothing to say. It is when you have differing opinions and complaints that you really get into something.There are times I have no urge to spoil books or movies. They are not frequent but they happen; usually it is a sign that I am enjoying the media, or that it simply doesn't matter to me much what the plot actually does.
Fair enough. I don't agree with how much you're using spoilers, but I understand your rationale. We don't all have to be the same. I also notice more details the second time I watch something, which I enjoy, but I also enjoy the first watch, for different reasons. My thinking can basically be summarised as: Why not both?
At the end of the day, the only person who truly knows how much I use spoilers in this thread is me. I would summarize my thinking as: There is no "should," "right," "wrong," or "properly" about how a person chooses to idly amuse themselves, especially in the context of TV, movies, or books. I've noticed an overarching sentiment in this thread that there is a right and wrong way to enjoy media. I think that the only point is to enjoy it. Would we have had as substantial a discussion if I started a thread and announced that I only read and watch things in reverse order (starting at the end and moving forward)? Why? If I enjoy it, then isn't the point of my leisure activity fulfilled? Would someone tell me I am "watching movies out of order too much," as if I was fundamentally missing something very important about the nature of movies by doing so? So what? This isn't a class and I'm not being graded. I do not have to demonstrate well-roundedness. I do not mean to antagonize but I think telling someone who enjoys movie spoilers that they "rely on it too much" is tantamount to telling a comedy buff they watch too many comedies. Who is monitoring my consumption habits and who even cares about them? - The answer is, outside of this thread, no one. And would no longer spoiling movies fundamentally change my life or psyche? the answer is: it would not, not a whit. You can tell me I should exercise more or should eat more vegetables or should save more money - these things I accept. They make an impact on my wellness, future happiness, stability, life goals, and etc. But to say someone should watch movies a certain way? Next you will be telling me there is a wrong way to use Hubski, or wear my hair, or go on vacation.
When I said I didn't agree with it, I didn't mean that you were wrong for doing it, just that I wouldn't want to do it myself. I actually don't have any issue with most of what you've responded to me, you're free to enjoy media as you please. Personally, I would rather give the author the benefit of the doubt, and be pleasantly surprised, while risking to be unpleasantly disappointed. If, for you, the pain of being disappointed isn't outweighed by the pleasure of watching something without prior knowledge, then by all means continue to read spoilers.
"One of the most common mistakes among young writers...is the idea that a story gets its power from withheld information...In the final analysis, real suspense comes with moral dilemma and the courage to make and act upon choices. False suspense comes from the accidental and meaningless occurrence of one damned thing after another." - John Gardner, The Art of Becoming a Novelist It seems awful pretentious to whip out quotes here, or probably anywhere, but I have to confess that Gardner's viewpoint is one that has influenced me since I was about 17, and has helped firm up how I feel about surprise information and plot twists. I have thought about it a lot, not that thinking about anything a lot legitimizes the conclusions that arise as a result. Some people really want to be surprised. I don't. I generally hate it, actually. It's okay for those people to hate spoilers and for me to embrace them. Sometimes experiencing something without foreknowledge can be precious, sometimes it can be the younger sister in a fight with her older sister who shouts "I hope you die!" as the elder is wheeled off to surgery...and never returns. (Sorry, I've been watching a lot of Grey's.) Also, as I think about it, there are very few pieces of art that I actually saw in a medium that allowed me to fully appreciate them for the first time. You know? Most of what's in the Louvre we all see for the first time in text books or shitty little 1" by 1" internet clip images. Was the first time you saw kleinblue in person?
It is unfortunate that you've been misinterpreting John Gardner since you were about 17. You've got four sentences and two sets of ellipsis there, but the money quote is right here: See, Gardner wasn't talking about "surprises." There are no surprises in literature. There is only foreshadowing and artful limitation of point-of-view. These are the things that separate literature from pulp, timelessness from ephemera. In quality writing, "surprises" are foreshadowed, have meaning, have consequence and are also inevitable. This is because the role of narrative is to provide an explanation, an insight, a cohesive through-line of a complex tale. That does not mean that nothing is unexpected. It means that these revelations are followed by the inward sucking of breath, by the "Oh, of course!" of the reader, by the realization of who Keyser Soze was all along. I've got a script with a "Luke I'm yer da" level of surprise at the end of the 2nd act. It's not a bad script; empirically, it's the one that got me repped at William Morris. And in order to set up that "I'm yer da" moment, I consciously dropped hints and foreshadowing in no less than eighteen places - not easy to do when you've only burned about 11,000 words so far. Nonetheless, not a single reader ever found all eighteen. The most anyone saw was eleven. A few people saw six or less. One saw three. A couple saw none. None of them saw the same ones. All of them were surprised. I win. When Gardner is talking about surprises, he's talking about the ending of Cold Mountain, wherein the protagonist completes his trek across the South successfully, hooks up with the girl, and then runs into a posse of never-seen-before deputies who shoot him dead in the space of half a chapter. There's no setup, other than the fact that the protagonist has been half-heartedly avoiding posses (in the abstract) for the entire book without encountering a single one. That's what Gardner means by "one damned thing after another." Piece of shit still won the National Book Award, and is still a shit movie with Jude Law, Renee Zelwiger and Nicole Kidman. A shit movie with seven Oscar noms. And trust me: Gardner would have hated the fuck out of it. A hatred of surprises and a love of spoilers may look superficially similar but they have only distrust in common. In the former, you do not trust the universe, you trust only yourself. In the latter, you do not trust the author... but for some stupid reason, you trust people like the choad in the article you linked. They're demonstrably worse narrators. Their motives are impure. You've linked me several poems with twists at the end. You have not helpfully added "by the way, it's about his dead girlfriend" prior to my reading them. Which is only marginally related to narrative, but substantially better related than painting, FFS. And yes. The first time I ever experienced anything in International Klein Blue was in person. In fact, I hadn't so much as heard of Yves Klein. I walked in off the street because I had a day to kill and the BART took me there. Not that it has much to do with narrative or spoilers. SPOILER ALERT: The Mona Lisa is an itty bitty painting. You're experiencing stories one way or the other. You can experience them first or second-hand, it's up to you. But don't for a minute pretend that you're not distrusting the narrator completely by leaving your experience in the hands of hacks like "Steve."False suspense comes from the accidental and meaningless occurrence of one damned thing after another.
I did consider, after I hit "reply," how "surprise" is often considered a very important part of good poetry. I haven't reconciled yet but I'm working on it. I trust I am allowed room to think, consider, and refine. I don't disagree with your input on Gardner; I can't apologize for taking college level courses at 17, one of which was intro to the novel taught by a prof who was a self-admitted Gardner fan girl. And would have written me a fantastic letter of ref had I ultimately needed it. The ultimate point is Gardner makes is that, as a writer, you should be able to lay everything pertinent to a story out to a reader at the beginning and still tell a good story. To me this can absolutely include plot. Who doesn't trust someone who shares their opinion over someone who doesn't? But what I can't see is what is necessarily fundamentally wrong with distrusting an author or narrator if I choose. This fundamentally seems a matter of preference over right or wrong. I don't see the problem with having trust issues...with your authors or narrators of fiction, at least. Let's not extrapolate to real life; it isn't real life or necessarily really accurate, I think. In fiction, I'm allowed to opt out. That's half the point: fiction is an area of escape. If I don't like how the escape is going, why should I have to stick with it?
1) The ability to "lay everything pertinent to a story out to a reader at the beginning and still tell a good story" is in no way compromised by writing unpredictably. The outcome of Gift of the Magi is laid out "pertinently" at the beginning and it's still a good story and it's a twist ending in like 2500 words. This is the same argument as before: "surprises" are simply story elements that are not the first, most obvious conclusions. If they're done well they're beyond complaint. If they're done poorly, "I like spoilers." 2) The problem is not "distrusting an author or narrator if I choose." The problem is choosing to trust someone else more. Let's say you watch The Bachelor. Let's say you like "Steve's" spoilers. That means you prefer The Bachelor as related by an internet parasite over The Bachelor as related by its creators. There is no way to have your "spoilers" without handing the narrative over to a third party. Sure - maybe you trust your friends' reactions to a film more than you trust the creators. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about forum comments. And I have no idea why anyone would choose to have Reddit, Hubski, Slashdot, Facebook, whoever be the lens through which to view any art but the most loathesome. When you view the work as intended, it is a direct transmission between you and the author (I know you love your King). When you view the work as spoiled, it is a game of telephone between you, the author, and some random twitbag on the Internet. Again - fine for you. You're not impacting my ability to enjoy art or media in the slightest. But you're also not convincing me your position has merit.
To revisit a much earlier comment you made: "The writer should be able to present her narrative as she sees fit." - and she has, by producing her book. That is her presentation. I feel like we have talked on Hubski before about how, once the book goes out into the world, it's up to the audience to interpret and react to it as they see fit. Here The author doesn't get to say, "No, you're reading it WRONG! That's not what I meant! That's not what it means!" The author does not get to dictate how the audience responds or interprets or engages with the book. The author cannot say literary interpretations or analysis are invalid simply because she does not like them or agree with them. She doesn't get to say, "No you can't love this character," or so on. I feel like the use of spoilers, or not, fits into this concept absolutely. ______________________ Wikipedia. Just the facts, ma'am, as some cowboy would say. (Fig 1) - Say I'm watching Grey's and there's this new character introduced mid-way through Season 5 and I just hate her. She annoys me. It pisses me off that she's on the show. I also know, due to prior reading, that during Season 4 and 5, ratings took a slump for the show, which is attributed to poorer overall quality as a result of the writer's slump. So...I know I'm not getting the Grey's I exactly love at the moment. And this character makes me nuts. Every time she comes on screen, I make a noise of disgust. I'm faced with a (first world style) dilemma. If I really loathe this character it's going to put me off of Grey's. The longer she's on, the more I'm going to stop enjoying the show. So, I think to myself...Hmm, maybe the character is going to die! Maybe this episode! (Then she doesn't die.) I'm still frustrated. I want the character gone. A horrible thought strikes me. What if the character is going to become permanent cast? That would suck. I don't know if I could stand to keep watching Grey's to the end if she's going to be there, at least in this iteration. So I go to Wikipedia. I don't ask my friends, they don't remember. I don't check Reddit because, what, is there like a grey's anatomy subreddit? They're not going to tell me what I want to know unless I post a self-post and that's just stupid. I guess I could google blogs and check them, but that's not going to tell me what I really want to know, which is just, "Is this character going to stay or go or what?" Voila! I find out the character leaves in S5E15! That's only...cripes, that's only 6 episodes from where I am. I can bear it. I also find out that she leaves because it turns out she cheated her way into the program. I am mollified. My dislike of her is justified. She is a terrible person, only we don't truly know that yet. Because of both these factors I am pleased and choose to continue the show instead of at least walking away for the time. If anything, my enjoyment of the storyline has increased because I checked the future plotline. (Fig 2) I read A Song of Fire and Ice. If you haven't caught it yet, rest of Hubski, Ned Stark dies at the end. I can't take the suspense leading up to his execution, though. I'm plagued with "Will he or won't he," so much so that it's distracting me from the actual details in the book and I find myself just wanting to skip to the end to find out what happens. I'm ruining the story for myself because of my anticipation. So, I look it up online. Knowing that he dies, I can continue to read the story in peace and actually absorb the details instead of anxiously skimming until the execution scene and then having to re-read the prior 50 pages. (Fig 3) I'm watching some movie I found on Netflix. From what I'm picking up in clues and foreshadowing, it seems like {some thing} is going to happen. But in my opinion, if that thing happens, I feel the movie will be cheapened, its overall quality will lessen, and I will find the story disappointing, predictable, and/or just icky. Not to my taste. I want to know if this thing is going to happen because if it is, fuck this movie, it's not worth my time. So I look it up on Wikipedia, find out what happens, and am able to decide. There are times I have no urge to spoil books or movies. They are not frequent but they happen; usually it is a sign that I am enjoying the media, or that it simply doesn't matter to me much what the plot actually does. I'm reading Don Quixote. I don't know what happens next nor would I be motivated enough to look. I watched The House of Yes and found the storytelling so skilled, subtle, and different from most movies that, while I was able to pick up on undertones in the script and movie and guess some of what would happen, I enjoyed the artistry behind those undertones, enjoyed not being totally sure (but being pretty sure), and I enjoyed watching it all play out. It's like novelty accounts on Reddit. If I check a username before I read a comment and see it's a novelty account, I know not to even bother. There's no spoiler that would have made me not go see the new Star Wars. But there's no spoiler that would have ruined the film for me either. I just don't experience that side of spoilers, I'd say 90% of the time. It doesn't matter to me if I know the plot ahead of time and in fact it might help sway me one way or another when it comes to consuming the media. ___ Steve and the Bachelor tie in here because Steve is the person who collects Bachelor spoilers. You couldn't pull up Wikipedia and check; the producers are going to edit that shit. But what I'm saying is that my feelings about spoilers have nothing to do with getting them from a commentator like Steve or other blogs or my friends or Facebook at all. If spoilers come to me via those methods, hey, sure, that's fine. I realize I used the Star Wars example and talked about asking my friends to spoil it. I didn't ask them because I wanted their lens. I would have inadvertently gotten it, sure, but it would have been collateral to the point, which was to gather facts. And in that way, I would think that this is more about distrusting the narrator or author than trusting someone else more. And I have been thinking about it tonight and I cannot think why distrusting the author/narrator/whatever is really that bad of a thing. After all, we all saw Episodes 1-3 of Star Wars. Could you really trust George Lucas to put out a good movie after that? Could you blame me if I didn't? No matter how many times I read LOTR my heart is still in my throat when I read, "The Eagles are coming!" No matter how many times I watch Silent Hill, Triangle-Head is still terrifying and the ending is still - silencing. Any movie where it turns out at the end, the sickly sweet wholesome teen queen dies of cancer? Nope, not interested, let me know she dies and count me the fuck out.
Nothing you write contravenes what I wrote. 1) You still are trusting others (in this case, Wikipedia) more than the author, and you are still allowing a dry outline to replace the narrative. You are still allowing an intermediation between you and the story and the best part is that you defend this practice by saying "but I enjoy stuff more when I don't trust the author." And you don't even see that you've created a vicious circle for yourself. 2) You are admitting that you don't even give a fuck where the spoilers come from, you are literally trusting anyone else with your entertainment over the author. Ned Stark dies barely 200 pages in, by the way - nowhere near the end. Which matters, and which shapes the story, and which absolutely shapes the experience with the book, and which since you weren't forced to pay attention, all you have now is a loosey-goosey don't-really-understand, don't-really-care experience with the material. 3) By allowing Wikipedia to let you know when your least-favorite Gray's character leaves, you rob yourself of the joyful experience of seeing how the creators dispatch them. You're so wrapped up in the meta that you're willing to burn the narrative. Really - you're stating that you'd rather read about reading than read. That you'd rather read Wikipedia than George RR Martin. Your opinion of George Lucas is pretty firmly cemented - is Wikipedia going to tell you anything to change your mind? Apparently it didn't even tell you that he had nothing to do with the new movie. You haven't counter-argued, you've elaborated. What's wrong with not trusting authors? As an author, fuck you.
shrug I guess all I can say is, well, it don't bother me for all it bothers all of you. Let's not act like I checked Wikipedia for spoilers for the new Star Wars when it's been clearly stated throughout this thread that I didn't spoil it for myself and neither did anyone else. That would of course explain why I had no idea whether or not Lucas was involved, though. I don't replace one with the other; I read both. Although I would rather read Wiki than Martin at this point. I haven't been a fan for a long time. For that author part of you? If this is the worst that readers can do to your book, then I think you'll come out okay.
I think you get the heart of it. I love spoiler too. I hate being surprised. The problem with the sanctity of spoiler is that some movie only worth their final twist. My go to example is the 6th Sense. I was bored to death during the movie. And was angry at myself at the reveal, for not having seen it coming. Compares to Usual Suspect. I was entertained by the whole movie, with the ending I was afraid to have missed some element (I didn't get the whole reveal scene with the cup, the cards, etc) I wish someone spoiled the 6th sense on me. I probably would not have gone watch it. 2hours saved. My point is, nobody would tell you to go watch Usual Suspect BECAUSE the end is spectacular... (there will be other arguments in favor of the movie), while on the 6th sense, the end is the only remotely watchable appeal. If there is an argument about being spoiled before a book/movie it's probably because the whole stuff sucks. As for kleinbl00 "first time experience" ... Yeah 1st time experience is unique. So is second time, and n-times. The difference being,1st time mostly sucks because you 're overwhelmed by the novelty. The others times are more enjoyable: you're in known territory, you can fully enjoy the landscape.Some people really want to be surprised. I don't. I generally hate it, actually.
This is wrong-headed and dismissive of storytelling in general. You're effectively arguing that the only "good" stories are those that you can read the Cliff's Notes first and enjoy equally. In effect, you're arguing that unless a tale remains interesting while mediated by random strangers, it isn't worth experiencing. I'm not a fan of Shamalyan but 6th Sense is a tight little tale. It isn't about Bruce Willis, either - it's about Haley Joel Osment and his ability to channel his fearful powers into a force of good. Bruce Willis' pulse is a subplot. In fact, it wasn't until the 7th rewrite that Shamalyan even figured out that Bruce Willis should be dead. Now - of all the writing I've done, only one story has been through six rewrites. Without getting into the objective measurement of art, somebody saw something in that tale prior to The Late Bruce Willis to drive Shamalyan into hacking at it again and again and again until it was the story that got shot (which was, if I'm not mistaken, the 13th rewrite). You can like it or not, as is true of all people and all tales. But arguing that the only reason it's worth watching Sixth Sense is to find out why Bruce Willis has a weird relationship with his wife is... short sighted. Kind of like arguing that every viewing experience is unique. Sure. Of course it is. But its a whole 'nuther thing to argue with a straight face that there's just as much difference between the second and third viewing of something as there is between the first and second. You can make these arguments. But you can't make them well. You can't make them make sense. And you certainly can't make them compelling.The problem with the sanctity of spoiler is that some movie only worth their final twist.
I can tell you this (and I am probably one of the ONLY people who can tell you this) : "E.T." is a MUCH better movie, if you have no idea what ET looks like, or anything about him. I just happened to see that movie before any of the publicity came out. The suspense of the first half hour or so is just GONE, if you know beforehand what he looks like. My point is, a spoiler doesn't always have to give away a "twist" to change the way you see the movie.
As a kid, all I knew was the look of his finger. It was on all the posters. I recently talked with mk about E.T and he mentioned how beautiful the lightening and use of color are throughout. It's a badass movie. I recently watched it.
It was the first movie I saw D&D portrayed in. Also the first that I remember seeing product-placement in - that movie launched "Reese's pieces". And a very very young Drew Barrymore.
Not very often, no, but not just because I know how they will end. I watch movies for the experience. If I want to have that experience again, I rewatch a movie. Birdman was an amazing experience to watch in theatres so I rewatched that later on, finding new details along the way while still being immersed in the story. Rewatching is not the same experience as having a movie spoiled even though the information you have going in is similar. Because SW:TFA was spoiled for me I didn't have that sweet and rare experience of going in completely blind and enjoying a movie for what it's worth - nor can I relive that experience by rewatching.
I will say that I tend to determine what my "favorites" of a [thing] (music, books, films) are by how much I willingly, even unthinkingly, revisit it. A good album is one I can listen to on repeat 20 times. A good movie is one I am willing to watch again, and so on. Before I was 19 or 20 I had never read one book besides Lord of the Rings twice. I am not saying that going in and experiencing a surprise is not without worth. However, what I am saying is that it matters more to some people than to others. I would also put out there that asking others to spoil Star Wars is as much a request born from perverse pleasure as from anything else - a lot of true fans are so against spoilers that to eagerly ask them for such makes them squirm and uncomfortable. I got several "Are you kidding me?" stares from people that I asked to tell me what happened in the new movie. I honestly think the request should be viewed as much as a judge of character and/or value than as a simple question, "tell me what happens." I think saying, "Tell me what happens at the end," tells you as much about the person you are addressing as it does about yourself. I already know how I feel; I already know I won't be terribly bothered if you tell me what happens at the end. However, seeing how you react to this tells me more...both about you, and the movie (or book or song or piece of art or whatever). The more quality that a person perceives in a product, the less likely they are to willingly spoil it. The more emotional investment a person has in it, the less likely they are to want to spoil it. Sometimes, it's fun to make people uncomfortable. Asking for spoilers makes people uncomfortable.
I can't disagree with that. I'm just surprised that there are people to whom it is worth none. I knew someone who, when walking in someone's dorm for the first time, would loudly say "So this is where you masturbate, isn't it?" - juuust to make people uncomfortable.I am not saying that going in and experiencing a surprise is not without worth. However, what I am saying is that it matters more to some people than to others.
Sometimes, it's fun to make people uncomfortable.
Or maybe people have different expectations of what they want to get out of a movie, book, etc. during the first exposure compared to repeated exposure.
To be entirely forthcoming, on very rare occasions, I have quit reading a book or watching a series because I have looked up future events within the story and disagreed with them or disliked them so entirely that I am no longer willing to continue. However, I can only remember this happening 2 or 3 times in my entire life, and I usually "quit" because I just so vehemently disagree with the ultimate outcome that I am not willing to continue to emotionally invest in the story if that is where it's going. That being said, it should also be considered that I am a self-admitted watcher of comedies over dramas because I prefer to invest my entertainment time in that which amuses me over that which distresses and/or saddens me. I do not think this is an unreasonable choice but I think the fact that it is a conscious choice educates my feelings re: spoilers and ultimate outcomes. Once, a boyfriend took me to go see Selma in theaters. I think Selma was a great and important film. However, after seeing it, I was angry at him. Why? Because I did not go on a date with a boy I liked in order to spend the night crying. (My anger may have been somewhat misplaced but the point stands.)
Wow - I think you just articulated everything I've ever felt / thought about spoilers. I totally agree with the idea that it takes you out of the "willing suspension of disbelief" and more into evaluating the author's methodology of arrival at the (now known) conclusion. While I suppose that's also interesting, I'm investing my time into the fantasy, not the technical review.