They're not spoilers, dammit

[yendi]

(Inspired by a couple of recent conversations)

Warning: This post contains things that some people consider spoilers.

Let's talk about spoilers and good movies:

A spoiler is something that reveals a twist or surprise in a movie before you've seen it. Not a perfect definition, but good enough for government work.

So knowing that Rosebud is a sled, that Harry Lime is the Third Man, that Malcolm Crowe is killed by his former patient, that Teddy is just using Leonard to kill drug dealers, that Dil has a penis, are all "spoilers."

Right?

So how many times have you seen Citizen Kane, Memento, or The Sixth Sense? Do the movies suck now? Are they all just cinematic one-note O'Henry stories or Twilight Zone episodes, built around shocking you and then allowing you to forget them and move on to the next piece of disposable culture?

Or are they three elegantly crafted films that work on multiple levels?

Does knowing that Tyler Durden isn't actually there make you unable to enjoy Fight Club? Is The Usual Suspects any less brilliant knowing that Verbal is a sociopath? Does it matter that the Planet of the Apes is actually earth?

Let's switch gears.

Did you know that Romeo and Juliet die in an act of Teenage Stupidity? That Ophelia kills herself? That Rochester keeps a Bonus Spare Wife in the attic? That Jesus resisted the Last Temptation? That Neil Klugman and Brenda Patimkin break up? That Billy dies trying to be a hero?

Does knowing any of that bother you (and yes, with that selection, I know you likely won't like every book listed, but hopefully at least one is something you recognize as a classic)? Does it make the book any less good?

Look, I recognize the value of the spoiler. I fully support and endorse Scalzi's statute of spoiler limitations, to give the art the time to have the initial impact. In fact, I've deliberately avoided spoilers of everything from TV shows to movies I was planning on seeing. I completely appreciate the thrill of that first discovery, and in a perfect world, it would be possible to always experience that thrill.

But in the end, art is something worth talking about (call it appreciation, analysis, whatever). And if you can't discuss plot twists, then the art likely doesn't hold up very well anyway (see every other movie that's used the "Fight Club bad guy who wasn't really there*," ending, from the tepid My Bloody Valentine remake to High Tension). The Sixth Sense is a perfectly-crafted movie (amazing, in light of the director's utter lack of perfection in recent years). And it's just as well-crafted the second or third time through.

And if you insist we can't talk about the spoilers, you're basically saying you don't want to talk about movies at any level approaching real analysis. And that's not how I handle things, either on LJ or in real life. So yeah, I'll avoid mentioning things about recent movies without a tag (you probably want to see Avatar before being told that it's all about a cookbook, and that the aliens are planning to eat us.) But eventually, I'll start treating filmmaking like art. Deal with it.

(And yes, this goes for television, too. Boone's death happened five years ago, and seriously informed Locke's actions for the next few seasons; if Lost were a novel, Boone would be dead on page 40, and the cover copy would probably spoil it.)

*And yes, I know that this twist predates Fight Club.

Comments

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

Citizen Kane has always sucked, and will always suck.

I'm one of those who doesn't care about spoilers - they don't bother me at all. If I see them, cool. If I don't, also cool.

[yendi]

Yeah, you and theloriest can sit in that corner of the room while I enjoy my Welles.

[cscottd.livejournal.com]

you probably want to see Avatar before being told that it's all about a cookbook, and that the aliens are planning to eat us.

"Unobtanium is people!" :)

[lordrexfear.livejournal.com]

I don't believe in spoilers. If there's a movie or book or comic you haven't read/seen etc. then you should be inherently aware that even reading a review of said movie other than just a "recommend or don't recommend" you risk having the ending ruined.

Having the ending "ruined" as you said shouldn't effect the viewer's enjoyment though. If it does then the twist wasn't even exciting or good, because a twist should always be "well, that makes sense..." and knowing it beforehand shouldn't ruin the reveal cause then you watch or read for all the hints and clues leading to it.

Scorcese did this amazingly well in Shutter Island. I had actually erased the ending from my mind somehow and yet as I was watching things were clicking for that were nods and hints to it all.

[pixelfish.livejournal.com]

I tend not to want films to be spoiled because they are something I will only see once, very likely. And I do tend to enjoy movies best coming to them fully innocent of trailers and reviews. But knowing the setup isn't spoilery, per se.

Books....well, I've spoiled plenty a book for myself. But I tend to re-read books A LOT and quickly. (This is why I tend not to rewatch movies super often. It's time you can spend reading.)

Recently on a feminist board, I recommended a series but felt compelled to note that a rape occurs in the third book. On other forums, I might not have included that information, but this board has a habit of letting members know when problematic content may be on the horizon. I still don't know whether the person who posted after me saying "thanks for the spoiler" was chastising me or thanking me. I hope she was thanking me, because it was not my intention to spoil the series for her, but rather to give folks fair warning, less they be triggered. (I also phrased the warning ambiguously, not noting which character would be raped, nor who would do the raping, nor the context for it, although I felt the author was really good about not letting characters engage in victim-blaming.)

[theloriest.livejournal.com]

You made me snort coffee. Bad yendi! :)

[mermaidnchains.livejournal.com]

CLAPS! There is only so long I can go seeing 'spoiler alert' before it becomes in its own way a siren call. And once Ive succumbed (and I have) it hasn't spoiled ANY of the really good movies. And if it has the capability of spoiling the media in question, then the media in question isn't worth the time to watch it.

*Which is what I assume you are saying in this post, thus I am agreeing*

[ckd]

He will spoil no wine before its time.

[gingicat]

I am not one of those who hates spoilers with a fiery hate, but I really do appreciate stories more on a first read than on a second one. This is coming from someone who reads mystery novels multiple times (well, used to, before kids).

There's an anthology organized by Spider Robinson in which he takes several of his favorite stories and asks their authors to recommend a favorite story as well. I think the title of the collection (and one of the stories) is Melancholy Elephants. I may be getting that wrong.

A recurring theme in the story introductions from both Spider and the other authors is, I envy you for being able to read this story for the first time.

Think about that. This story was so special to read the first time that, while it remained a favorite, it was never the same as the first time.

I think that "Born on the Fourth of July" is the only truly good movie that Tom Cruise has ever been in. I would never have gone to it if I had known it was a Vietnam movie, and I was on the verge of walking out multiple times. And then Tom Cruise became Ron Kovacs, former conservative turned Vietnam protester, and well, it was all over.

I only read Jane Eyre once. I could not bear to watch her go through all of that falling in love for most of the book and then finding out about the wife in the attic.

I was never able to watch The Usual Suspects again because I didn't want to let myself analyze Verbal's narrative.

Those are three examples of things I could not have enjoyed in the same way if "spoiled."

[redfishie.livejournal.com]

huh. Actually I have never managed to see the end of Fight Club for one reason or another - and am now unlikely to. As while it was a good movie, things kept interupting it and I never got back to it....

Not that I disagree with you - I mentioned something that happened in a more recent star wars at a party about a year and a half ago - and one of the person's there was offended as she never had gotten around to seeing it.

[spacehawk.livejournal.com]

Some of these movies, when it gets to the "twist," it just makes me feel the whole movie sucked and wasted my time. It doesn't feel brilliant.

I liked The Usual Suspects anyway, and could watch that one more than once, but usually movies with a "twist" really turn me off.

So in general, spoil away, since I either won't be seeing it, or I will be unhappy with the "twist" anyway. In contrast "Here is a story about X, I think how Y happens in this show is something you might find interesting," may convince me to see something, if, after some discussion, I agree. Usually when people say "I can't tell you what happens because I'll spoil it, but you'll like this movie," they're actually speaking about themselves liking it, and they probably don't really know my tastes too well but are assuming I would like it because they did.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I really do prefer to see movies when I don't know what they are going in.

And by that, I mean, I like it when I don't even know what genre a movie is. I've had some of my best experiences when a friend said to me, "Go, you'll like it," and I went, and I liked it, but knew NOTHING about it beforehand. I don't watch a lot of real-time media, so I miss a lot of commercials, so it's possible for me to see a movie without knowing anything.

And I really wish I HAD been able to see a bunch of those movies unspoiled. But it's not necessary, and it's not reasonable for me to expect it of people after a few months.

That said -- have you ever SEEN someone who's gone into a Shakespeare play without having any clue what it's about?

'Cause I have.

'Cause I have been. I mean, do you know what Pericles is about? Or King John? I didn't, before seeing them. I mean, there are some plays that pretty much everyone knows SOMETHING about. But not all of them -- and, if I can go into a play or movie "blind", not knowing how it will turn out, I like that a lot better.

(Some companies have been known to use the Nahum Tate ending of King Lear, just for this reason.)

Still, it's unreasonable for me to expect everyone else to conform to that preference.

[tablesaw]

It's true that these works of art can work on multiple levels, but spoilers still deprive someone of one of those levels. It's an experience worth preserving. I mean, maybe that food does still taste good after you've started chewing on it for me, but I'd still like to get the whoel experience, if I may.

But there's spoilers and there's spoilers. For things that happen to happen, I think that Scalzi's timeline is about right. But spoilers are things that a movie or book conceals specifically for the revelation. Those are that things that should be concealed whenever possible. ANd they're not always the ending either. Whether the hero succeeds or whether a character dies isn't usually as big a deal as the dark secret in the hero's background or who kills a character.

TV is rough because it's serial. Things that were once startling revelations become backstory needed just to keep up. Lost has so many spoilers that they get downgraded to spoilers pretty damn quickly. Some book series have this problem too. I got spoiled on Dresden Files because I accidentally picked up a book out of order, and a major spoiler for the previous book (not that Harry survived and won, but something specific and intentionally surprising) was dropped on the first or second page. On the other hand, I missed one book completely, and while I know the general shape of the story, I don't feel spoiled for anything.

Still, I think that in discussions like this, spoiler warnings, like the one at the top of your post are enough to dissuade the eye, and that cuts aren't always necessary, unless you want to use all caps and single-sentence paragraphs.

Also, Romeo and Juliet's deaths are "spoiled" midway through the prologue, so that's not an ideal example.

[tablesaw]

I don't think anyone knows what Pericles is about.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

I look forward to reading Lost spoilers, since I stopped watching in season... 4? Something. And wonder if there's going to be a good ending. Has it ended yet? I'd like them to get to the point so I can read about it as a whole and see what the heck the writers were thinking.

[niftybabe313.livejournal.com]

The boat sinks at the end of Titanic.

I don't really care about spoilers, if I'm reading a post that seems to be headed the way of "spoiling" something that I want to see/read, I know where the scroll button is on my mouse!

[themaskmaker.livejournal.com]

This needed to be said! Thanks.

[eilonwy.livejournal.com]

AMEN. I mean, as a Shakespearean, I guess I kind of have to agree with you, but YES. THIS. Good grief. I mean, I won't try to change a spoilerphobe's mind, but to be yelled at for some of the innocuous things I've said in a post (in my own journal, and where I go through bizarre convolutions to say things without being spoilery) is irritating.

I recently posted a review on Amazon of a fifth book in a series. I mentioned something that was revealed in the third book, and got chastised for the spoiler. What the hell? If you're reading a review of BOOK FIVE, you should expect spoilers even of THAT one, let alone ALL THE PREVIOUS ONES.

Um. Sorry for the caps. Clearly I'm still touchy about that particular situation... heh.

[gardenfey.livejournal.com]

There's a big difference between reading the spoilers and finding the twist in the moment of the movie. I never saw The Crying Game or The Sixth Sense, but they would have been better had I not accidentally discovered the plot twist.

That being said, once a movie has been around for a while, one can hardly complain about getting a spoiler.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I've seen it twice.

I quite like it.

But, yeah, I suppose I'd be hard-pressed to say what it was about, either.

I think it's about "Hey! We're now performing in an INDOOR theater, and can do types of scene-changes what we couldn't have never done back in the old days!" but I'm not certain.

[thefirethorn.livejournal.com]

Yes, but HAVE YOU READ AX COP???



http://axecop.com/index.php/acepisodes


Spoiler: Uni-baby turns out to be the son of Uni-man!

[slipjig.livejournal.com]

Word.

[cissa.livejournal.com]

I don't mind spoilers. If something is worth reading or seeing, it's worth it even if I know the "spoiler" bits.

The one recent exception: I was glad that I had not been spoiled for the sparkly vampires in "Twilight", because it was an insanely tedious book and hitting that unexpectedly made me laugh and laugh and laugh.

[slipjig.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, I don't fully buy it. Yes, I've seen Crying Game / Fight Club / insert-movie-here more than once, and have enjoyed them both knowing and not knowing what was coming; as you state, the artistry holds up over and over again, and I'm constantly discovering new details and aspects that I'd missed on earlier viewings. To say that I wouldn't have lost anything if I'd been "spoilered," however, is to imply that movies have no emotional resonance beyond their artistry. You underestimate the power of the epiphany, the moment of discovery, that arguably any story should be striving for. I'm not only talking about Shyamalanian twist endings, either; I'm talking about simply discovering What Is Going to Happen. If the artistry of a film is that good, then we will connect to the story and its characters, and have a vested interest in them. If the story is going to affect us on an emotional level, then there has to be some mystery as to whether this man will live or die, or this relationship will prosper, or this disaster will come to pass, or this conundrum will be solved.

Look, I'm a big ol' movie dork, and I've had endings revealed to me right and left just because I read about movies a lot. And yes, I can go to the movies I already know the plot to and enjoy the writing, the acting, the direction, the cinematography, the editing and so on; I'm enough of a dork that I go out of my way to notice these things. But if that's all I have—if I already know what's coming enough not to be in suspense or surprised or over attached to someone because they're going to get killed before the movie's over (I still haven't watched Saving Private Ryan because Craig "Dickhead" Kilborn decided to announce the ending one day because he thought he was being funny)—then cinema runs the risk of becoming nothing but a big abstraction. Give me stories. Give me my two hours to escape into someone else's world, not the wonder of superb camera angles. I can't stop the Internet from giving the endings away if people want to, but don't be shocked if I get pissed about it. After all, they stole a story from me.

[sage-and-sea.livejournal.com]

The show makes a difference, to me. I would have hated, for instance, to be spoiled for the end of this season's Dexter and was VERY careful to stay offline until I could watch it, but I'll read every spoiler out there for Glee because half of them are lies anyway, and really who cares who is guest starring or who is singing what song? YMMV of course.

[captain18.livejournal.com]

I'll echo the notion of spoilers and spoilers.

Certainly if you're approaching a topic in conversation of any kind you have to be prepared to walk away having heard some amount of detail. While I can respect that there are people who get their underwear in a twist simply knowing that there is a twist, people that sensitive should know better than to enter a conversation without setting expectations of their low spoiler threshold.

At the same time though, I do feel like -- unless you're in a forum where it's understood that nothing is held back -- there should be some reasonable attempt made to preserve the integrity of or at least disclaim the discussion of big surprises or linchpin details.

Certainly there are multiple levels on which to consume a work of entertainment, but consuming it with the original surprise intact is as valid as any other way, and in some ways is more precious since once it's lost you can't get it back without some severe head trauma.

You can always go back and analyze a particular shot, or break down a specific character. But wishing for Alzheimer's so you can experience the magic of not knowing again is a sad situation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting these things should never be talked about. Certainly there are times and places where discussion of all parts of a work are valid and appropriate. So I guess ultimately, I believe there's a balance to be struck or a middle ground to be had between saying everything and saying nothing.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

To say that I wouldn't have lost anything if I'd been "spoilered," however, is to imply that movies have no emotional resonance beyond their artistry. You underestimate the power of the epiphany, the moment of discovery, that arguably any story should be striving for.

This.

This is what I try to explain when I teach the difference between a secret and a mystery.