Can Knowing Spoilers Make Movies Better?

[cannastop]

There have been studies on this suggestion:

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/monkeysee/2012/07/26/157430614/it-was-all-a-dream-or-turns-out-spoilers-are-good-for-you

 

 

And I have anecdotal evidence that it might be true. Take for instance my current object of obsession, Zootopia. I knew the "twist" before I walked in, so I couldn't complain if it was predictable. Instead, I managed to be surprised at some very specific details about the climax that I thought were very clever.

[Ethan Hunt]

No

[AniNate]

I guess the answer is complicated. Knowing spoilers negates the thrill of piecing together a story as you're watching it, but it also means you're more focused on appreciating the small details the first time you see it and may lead to a more "accurate" assessment of a film's merits, since that's how you'd be watching it every time afterward anyway. I still think spoilers aren't something that should be forced on people if they don't want them, though.

Edited May 22, 2016 by tribefan695

[The Panda]

Eh, I'm mixed on this.  I think you can enjoy something knowing what's going to happen or not (in fact knowing what's going to happen lets you pay closer attention to different details that lead to it).

 

My main complaint is a first and second viewing is a different experience.  A first viewing is one of discovery and first impressions, the second and later are ones to savor details that you aren't going to pick up watching/reading once.  In a sense I start can start enjoying something much more after s few viewings if it really is great quality, so in a sense a spoiler would be cutting out part of the first viewing in a way and skipping to the second.

 

I think knowing some details is good, as it keeps your expectations somewhat in line, and it gives you clues about what to look for.  But I also prefer to enjoy the first viewing still being able to get the discovery value that comes with not really knowing what's going to happen.  Then in later viewings (if I liked it enough) I can start dissecting it and enjoying it more.

 

It's like Game of Thrones.  I've enjoyed Game of Thrones more with repeated viewings and readings, but I in no way want to skip the first viewing to get straight to dissecting.  The first viewing is part of the experience, and I personally like to keep it that way.

[Plain Old Tele]

It's an individual thing, but for me it's 100% no. Hell to the no. Never in a billion years. In fact, in a perfect world I wouldn't even watch a teaser or trailer beforehand, or know much of anything at all before seeing it. 

[cannastop]

1 minute ago, Telemachos said:

It's an individual thing, but for me it's 100% no. Hell to the no. Never in a billion years. In fact, in a perfect world I wouldn't even watch a teaser or trailer beforehand, or know much of anything at all before seeing it. 

Gosh, being an admin here must be torture for you then.

[Plain Old Tele]

5 minutes ago, cannastop said:

Gosh, being an admin here must be torture for you then.

 

You have no idea sometimes.  I suppose it helps that I don't care that much about superhero movies. 

[Fancyarcher]

Not usually. I've seen plenty of movies where I already know the major spoilers ahead and usually it doesn't ruin my experience of the movie, unless I don't like the film.

[mrqe93]

Somewhat.... 

 

I guess it depends on the movies - how everything is led up to that crucial revelation. 

 

That being said, I enjoyed all the movies for which I read scripts, leaked or published, before viewing.

 

 

 

 

 

[Impact]

Well most pre 1990 trailers gave away everything in the film, if you think some trailers are bad now-watch some from the 1970s where they show half the film sometime

Anyway-depends on the film. (Though it did make Terminator 4 less enjoyable when they gave away a big secret in the trailer. While it was a smart move in Star Trek 2 not to give away who the villain was IMO)

[Kvikk Lunsj]

23 hours ago, Telemachos said:

It's an individual thing, but for me it's 100% no. Hell to the no. Never in a billion years. In fact, in a perfect world I wouldn't even watch a teaser or trailer beforehand, or know much of anything at all before seeing it. 

I found out ending of Fight Club before I saw it. I still love the movie but I would love to experience that for first time. 

[Kvikk Lunsj]

19 hours ago, Impact said:

Well most pre 1990 trailers gave away everything in the film, if you think some trailers are bad now-watch some from the 1970s where they show half the film sometime

Anyway-depends on the film. (Though it did make Terminator 4 less enjoyable when they gave away a big secret in the trailer. While it was a smart move in Star Trek 2 not to give away who the villain was IMO)

They also gave away the secret in Terminator 5 trailer. 

[chasmmi]

In general no, but  it does change from film to film I would say. 

 

A film that lives or dies on the effectiveness of its twist (like say Sixth sense) would probably lose a lot by being spoiled. Some other films maybe not so much.

 

It's not the same, but I know there have been many films that were twenty times better the second time around due to me not having the wrong expectations in my head that viewing and knowing how things were going to go. Perhaps these are films that would be improved for me by being spoiled first? 

 

A big example of this was Alien, which was a film that I was expecting to be a constant horror/action rampage of people running from an evil alien and so I got quite bored for the first hour as pretty much eff all happens. Upon second viewing though and knowing not to expect an alien to turn up till the 472 minute mark, I could enjoy the build u of characters a lot more for what it really was. 

 

 

 

 

[Amadeus]

Yes, yes and over a thousand times yes.

The plot has always been secondary to me.

 

If you have two eggs, a frying pan, some butter, milk, some flour, sugar and a camera you can make a masterpiece about a pancake.  
You may have seen some of the most famous scene in 2001 but they only truly work in the context from which they arose, and therefore seem as good as new when you watch them again. 

 

A masterpiece like Psycho just gets better and better each I time I see it, and it is just because I can focus on how the story is told and what ideas the movie has. It's all about the pictures. Even a minor great like Sinister is scary even though you know how it's gonna end. Why? Because it's a well produced scary movie. 

 

 

[AniNate]

17 hours ago, chasmmi said:

 

A film that lives or dies on the effectiveness of its twist (like say Sixth sense) would probably lose a lot by being spoiled. Some other films maybe not so much.

 

 

I don't think that movie lives/dies on its twist, and that's why it's remained a classic. It's mostly about HJO's character coming to terms with his condition and learning how to use it to make the world a better place. The purpose of the twist is merely to act as closure for Willis' character subplot.

 

But a first-time unspoiled viewing is an opportunity that can't be replicated and even if knowing what happens makes a film better you'd still like to be able to see it from that perspective first.

Edited May 26, 2016 by tribefan695

[cannastop]

On 5/26/2016 at 1:17 PM, tribefan695 said:

 

I don't think that movie lives/dies on its twist, and that's why it's remained a classic. It's mostly about HJO's character coming to terms with his condition and learning how to use it to make the world a better place. The purpose of the twist is merely to act as closure for Willis' character subplot.

 

But a first-time unspoiled viewing is an opportunity that can't be replicated and even if knowing what happens makes a film better you'd still like to be able to see it from that perspective first.

I watched the Sixth sense long after it rose to pop culture canon, so of course I knew the twist. I have to say, it's good movie, through and through. It's even predictable, I dare say.

[75Live]

On 5/22/2016 at 7:59 PM, Telemachos said:

It's an individual thing, but for me it's 100% no. Hell to the no. Never in a billion years. In fact, in a perfect world I wouldn't even watch a teaser or trailer beforehand, or know much of anything at all before seeing it. 

 

This  

[AniNate]

I think responding to this topic with a flat no is short-sighted.  If spoilers really ruined a movie why would we watch anything more than once? 

[Jason]

Original study is here: 

http://pages.ucsd.edu/~nchristenfeld/Publications_files/Spoilers.pdf

 

Methodology seems sound, they used a variety of different stories in three different genres. Sample size is large enough, even for the relatively small effect size.

 

Main thing though is that they're asking for a numerical rating of how much they enjoyed the stories. I don't know if that necessarily captures the difference between knowing a spoiler or not though. Panda already summed this up nicely:

 

On 5/22/2016 at 3:05 PM, The Panda said:

A first viewing is one of discovery and first impressions, the second and later are ones to savor details that you aren't going to pick up watching/reading once.

 

It's possible I might even enjoy a second viewing a little more, but honestly it's a different experience and I'd prefer to have both.

 

I'd have liked if the study also asked participants other questions aside from enjoyment, such as how much they would want to re-read the story, and how likely they would be to recommend it to someone else.

 

As for Zootopia, I actually did know the main twist. It definitely didn't spoil it for me (I can't recall liking a film as much on the first viewing), but I still would have preferred to have not known, if only so I'd know when I'd have figured it out myself. And I'm glad it's the only thing I knew in advance, so I still got the chance to be surprised by other things.

[The Panda]

I will say, if a movie lives/dies on its twist being shocking alone, then it's not a good movie.