Spoilers: Bad or Good?

[Water Bottle]

The whole concept of spoilers invariably privileges plot over style and form, assumes that everybody in the public thinks that way, and implies that people shouldn’t think any differently. It also privileges fiction over nonfiction (although Terry Zwigoff actually once complained about some reviewers of his Crumb including the “spoiler” that Robert Crumb’s older brother, Charles, committed suicide), and I’m not clear why it necessarily should. Why is it supposedly a spoiler to say that Touch Of Evil begins with a time bomb exploding but supposedly not a spoiler to say that the movie begins with a lengthy crane shot? Is it a spoiler only to say that Dorothy travels from Kansas to Oz, or is it also a spoiler to say that The Wizard Of Oz switches from black and white to color?

 http://www.avclub.com/article/why-its-time-stop-anti-spoiler-paranoia-206152

[BK007]

Any part of the story that is told out of context is a spoiler.

 

I go to movies to watch for the story. I'm not going to walk into a movie with all style and no substance because it'll still be a crap movie.

[tommycruise]

depends

[Water Bottle]

Any part of the story that is told out of context is a spoiler.

 

I go to movies to watch for the story. I'm not going to walk into a movie with all style and no substance because it'll still be a crap movie.

 

Okay, Darth Vader dies. I guess I just spoiled the entire saga of Star Wars for you. So all that matters to you is plot and nothing else? Not the score, the cinematography, the editing, the costumes, the sets, the lighting? If so, why bother going to go see a movie? Why not just read the script? You get the plot with none of the style.

[John Marston]

for me personally I don't care about spoilers. I have spoiled entire films for myself but still enjoy them. 

[darkelf]

If spoilers were bad then rewatches would be entirely off the table. With that said, I hate them. I like going into movies without knowing almost anything so that I can be surprised be it by plot, characters, jokes (this especially, I'm looking at you, comedy trailers ) or any particular technical part of the movie like locations, cinematography and so on. If I really want to explore the movie deeper, I'll watch it again but the first time it's best going in unspoiled

[Michael Gary Scott]

I avoid spoilers cause I like to be surprised but it wouldn't take my enjoyment of a movie away.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

http://badassdigest.com/2013/06/05/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs.-spoilers-and-the-4-levels-of-how-we-consume-a/His answer: It sucks if you are spoiled, but it's ok because there are other ways to appreciate a work.I suggest you read the entire piece though; it's brilliant. 

[lab276]

I'd rather go in unspoiled and I think it's a dick thing to spoil people when they don't want it. Maybe it does prioritise story or plot over everything else, but who cares? It's a first viewing. You can always appreciate form and style and score and cinematography and whatever else later on.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

I'd rather go in unspoiled and I think it's a dick thing to spoil people when they don't want it. Maybe it does prioritise story or plot over everything else, but who cares? It's a first viewing. You can always appreciate form and style and score and cinematography and whatever else later on.

I wouldn't disagree with this. The issue, though, is that people tend to get too worked up over spoilers. It's dick if somebody just watched Interstellar and the conversation unfolds like this:Person A: Hey I watched Interstellar. It's AmazingPerson B: OMG, don't spoil it for me.Person A: Well, at the end, everybody dies.That's annoying and you can be angry at Person A. However, if a critic spoils something in his review, he is probably doing it to make a larger and more valuable point about form, style, or character, and to become angry over that is unfair (especially when it's your choice to read the review in the first place). And yet, everyday, people get annoyed at critics for spoiling something. 

[Dementeleus]

Spoilers... 100% evil.

[BK007]

Okay, Darth Vader dies. I guess I just spoiled the entire saga of Star Wars for you. So all that matters to you is plot and nothing else? Not the score, the cinematography, the editing, the costumes, the sets, the lighting? If so, why bother going to go see a movie? Why not just read the script? You get the plot with none of the style.

 

I didn't say nothing else, but a shiny turd, is still a turd.

 

Anyway, your example is trying to make a mockery out of my opinion, but it fails. The script is meant to be for the movie, not a standalone piece, otherwise it would be a short story or a book.

[The Panda]

To me spoilers are revealing anything in the movie that wouldn't be close to general knowledge before going in.

 

Minor spoilers are all over reviews because of that, but I would say that telling somebody Oz goes from Black and White to Color would be a major spoiler because it reveals a pivotal stylistic choice in the movie that is meant to be kept hidden.

 

However it would not be a spoiler to say a movie is well-shot, or has long drawn out shots, because those are equivalent to saying "There is funny dialogue in the movie," or "Jonah Hill gives a good performance that will make you uncomfortable."  However it is a spoiler if you say what is going on in that specific shot.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

To me spoilers are revealing anything in the movie that wouldn't be close to general knowledge before going in.

 

Minor spoilers are all over reviews because of that, but I would say that telling somebody Oz goes from Black and White to Color would be a major spoiler because it reveals a pivotal stylistic choice in the movie that is meant to be kept hidden.

 

However it would not be a spoiler to say a movie is well-shot, or has long drawn out shots, because those are equivalent to saying "There is funny dialogue in the movie," or "Jonah Hill gives a good performance that will make you uncomfortable."  However it is a spoiler if you say what is going on in that specific shot.

It's a spoiler if you give away what happens in a specific shot, but is it bad?

[TServo2049]

If possible, I will go into a movie as blind as possible. If I do see the trailer, it can be a month or two before I actually see the movie. I try not to actively seek out anything.This made Gravity a literal edge-of-my-seat experience, because I had no idea

whether or not Sandra Bullock was going to get out alive at the end.

Edited July 3, 2014 by TServo2049

[Water Bottle]

I wouldn't disagree with this. The issue, though, is that people tend to get too worked up over spoilers. It's dick if somebody just watched Interstellar and the conversation unfolds like this:Person A: Hey I watched Interstellar. It's AmazingPerson B: OMG, don't spoil it for me.Person A: Well, at the end, everybody dies.That's annoying and you can be angry at Person A. However, if a critic spoils something in his review, he is probably doing it to make a larger and more valuable point about form, style, or character, and to become angry over that is unfair (especially when it's your choice to read the review in the first place). And yet, everyday, people get annoyed at critics for spoiling something.

 

Well yeah intentionally spoiling a movie isn't something I'm necessarily advocating here. Person A is definably being a dick in that exchange. And critics do have a responsibility to limit their spoilers (they shouldn't give away big twists) but small plot details? For instance, let's take Oldboy (the Japanese version).

 

If someone told me that the protagonist sleeps with the female lead, so what? It's expected to happen. But if they reveal that

the female lead is the protagonist's daughter

then I would be a little more upset because holy shit, that's a big twist. Even if someone did spoil it for me, I'd still enjoy Oldboy though because it was a well-made film.

 

Spoilers... 100% evil.

 

Are they, though? Does spoiling a movie make it impossible for you to enjoy it-even in your first watch?

Edited July 3, 2014 by Water Bottle

[AniNate]

In this age where even trailers sometimes give away what one might call a "spoiler", you really can't be sure where the line is. 

 

In a perfect world, there would be no trailers and everyone would go into a film completely unsure what to expect. But if you hope to sell your story it's inevitable that you will have to give away certain surprises the filmmakers hoped to conceal, even if it's just an action money-shot.

Edited July 3, 2014 by tribefan695

[Water Bottle]

In this age where even trailers sometimes give away what one might call a "spoiler", you really can't be sure where the line is. 

 

In a perfect world, there would be no trailers and everyone would go into a film completely unsure what to expect. But if you hope to sell your story it's inevitable that you will have to give away certain surprises the filmmakers hoped to conceal.

 

"Certain" surprises is the key word there. What about plot details that aren't meant to be surprises by the filmmakers? Like, let's say that some of the plot is pretty rudimentary. Hmmm....let's say The Sixth Sense. We all know the big twist but would Shyalaman would have been upset if you revealed that the boy and Bruce Willis formed a special connection? Or that the little girl was killed by her mother? I guess you could argue and debate which he would like to keep hidden before a first viewing, but they don't ruin the movie.

 

And I think a filmmaker would rather a trailer be honest about the film than lie and therefore creating false expectations (Godzilla) comes to mind.

[TServo2049]

Yes, that is interesting. People claim that Fox screwed up with HTTYD2, spoiling that

Valka is Hiccup's mom

but everything I've read seems to point to the director not ever intending that plot point to be a secret in the first place.

Edited July 3, 2014 by TServo2049

[BK007]

Yes, that is interesting. People claim that Fox screwed up with HTTYD2, spoiling that

Valka is Hiccup's mom

but everything I've read seems to point to the director not ever intending that plot point to be a secret in the first place.

 

Yeah, but he's an idiot. I'm sorry, but that's the one thing I disagree with in regards to his direction.

 

There is a wonder that pervades through the film and the reveal is pretty magnificent, but to know who was going to be revealed did take some shine off. They could have easily marketed it without spoiling that. In fact, I think I've already been spoiled for the finale, which sucks, because DeBlois, once again, was an idiot. Does he assume that everyone reads the books? Sometimes he should just shut up.

 

Anyway, the director obviously intended twists to be kept secret, because it's a damn twist. Maybe you could argue then, that the movie relies on its twist too much, but still, imagine if the Se7en trailers showed the twist? Or the Sixth Sense?

 

There's something intangible that makes your first watch something else, movies I'd seen none of feel even better. Like, going in and watching LA Confidential and Enemy of the State and Gattaca, it was really nice seeing everything for the first time. Most movies I see the trailer once, decide if I want to see the movie, and don't see anything else until I see the movie. New movies that is. Movies they don't convince me on the first trailer, I'll see a second.

 

So unless they do something stupid like HTTYD2 which you cannot forget, I forget most of what they show in the trailer.