|
OP, how is your internet conversation specifically being stifled by trying to avoid spoilers? Your only example of this is the GBS spoiler thread titles, which are deliberate dick moves and not intended to engender discussion in any way. In my experience, it's pretty easy to not post spoilers. I don't like spoilers myself, so I don't watch trailers or read forum threads about stuff I'm interested in watching. I had to get off the forums when TFA was released because goons would discuss it anywhere, but I don't get the impression anyone really enjoyed every thread turning into a Star Wars thread for a week. You seem to be solely arguing that because you don't find your experience to be lessened by spoilers, that must hold true for everybody else as well. This is such a bizarre universalism and it's gotten really prevalent online recently. A lot of goons have made that same argument (in this thread, even), and I've read several articles proudly declaring that spoilers aren't real. Almost always backed up with that one study about short stories. Do you also hold that anyone who dislikes your favorite food or likes to have sex with people you're not into is also just a whiny self-deluding baby?
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 04:39 |
|
|
I'm not talking about the hyperbole of GBS posters or whatever. I'm just saying that some people derive greater enjoyment when things they don't expect occur in media, and therefore deriver a lesser degree of enjoyment when those things are revealed beforehand. I'm not sure how that is an objective untruth, any more than some people disliking cilantro and preferring meals prepared without cilantro being objectively untrue.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:Conversation is stifled because of the intensity of the SPOILERS!! attitude today. It's mutated from an understandable aversion to reading major twists and surprises ahead of time to a crusade against any information about the work being revealed before a hypothetical audience has a chance to see it. Try saying anything meaningful about a film's plot or characters without giving something away. It's impossible, so vagueness rules. I can see that, but if you're gonna post something that you realize people might consider a spoiler, why not just slap a spoiler tag on it even though it's not really one? You get to be as specific as you want and nobody's experience or expectations are ruined.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Obviously there's a limit to how much you can censor yourself. I'd personally say that nothing in the second paragraph would constitute a spoiler, and if you're sensitive to that degree, the onus is on you to at the least not be on Twitter. I watched TFA knowing the most basic of details (there's a black stormtrooper, the bad guy has a claymore lightsaber), and I still considered myself to have gone in blind. I think the way details are discussed often makes it obvious that they're not spoilers. If you notice something looks like a spoiler, you could always tag it and then just point out that it's not really a spoiler. For the TFA example, you could use Luke is missing (not really a spoiler) versus Kylo is Ben Solo, son of Han and Leia (major TFA spoiler). There's a conversation to be had on what exactly constitutes a major spoiler and what is a minor or non-spoiler. I think movies eventually get to the point where major plot points become common knowledge, and there's precious few people who haven't watched, say, Terminator 2, but are interested in seeing it and don't already know the big twist. It's pretty much always lovely to drop big spoilers for TV shows, though, like the OP casually dropping bombs about Dexter and Buffy finales, and originally using the GBS GoT spoilers as an example of spoiler outrage. Obviously for Game of Thrones there's people who are invested in the show and don't know details from the books, and people who don't watch episodes as soon as they air, but even for an ended show like Dexter, that big spoiler is 48 hours into the show.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Again, that study shows a tendency for people to enjoy short stories slightly more if they're spoiled ahead of time. The actual study does say that each individual tested preferred spoiled stories to unspoiled ones, and does not examine anything that the test subjects have been invested in for more than 20 minutes. The author of that article somehow extrapolates from this that obviously everyone enjoys media the same way he does, and people just refuse to realize this fact. A Wizard of Goatse posted:IMO none of those things are spoilers, because 'spoilers', like movies 'raping your childhood', are an imaginary injury meant to displace an entirely internal dissatisfaction onto the outside world, and the kind of person who thinks "I enjoyed that movie but I could have enjoyed it, if not more, in a somehow different way, had I had different experiences, but that right has been forever taken from me" is a meaningful grievance is not going to be satisfied by any set of conversational constraints you could devise. Instead of waxing about hypotheticals, let's think of the opposite position. Have you never read a mystery novel and thought "I wonder who did it? My money's on the butler, but there's obviously something going on with the cook?" Have you never gone to a movie you knew precious little about, and suddenly had the very premise of it unexpectedly change midway through? Have you never followed a TV series and been shocked when a character is suddenly killed off? It's pretty hard to objectively claim that you enjoy something less because it's been spoiled, but it's pretty easy to be aware that you tend to enjoy things more when they're unexpected. Have you literally never derived satisfaction from something you did not expect occurring in a piece of media?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:If the brief moment of a surprised 'oh, something unexpected happened' is the only thing keeping you going, you have lovely taste. If the film is more engrossing than that, it doesn't really need the moments of surprise. I was spoiled on what happens in Force Awakens, but that actually made it easier to look at the emotional turmoil the characters were going through as they made those choices. I didn't get to have a 'first time' experience where the plot is all new and everything surprises me, but as a human that consumes media I wasn't really going to be surprised anyway. To paraphrase Dan Harmon, humans have become like little render farms who can guess your twist many episodes before they even get set up in the story. The onus is now to make something that's good even if you know what's going to happen. This also means that, inherently, nothing is unspoiled any more. We're too well-equipped for that to really be possible. Again, have you literally never been surprised by any piece of media? Have you never had a reaction stronger than "oh, I guess that happened?" Hbomberguy posted:The study's basic point is that there's more to storytelling than the literal plot, and knowing it in advance can actually be a boon to further grasping the themes or understanding the narrative of a piece of art. If you looked at the study and your response was 'hur dur, it was short stories and not movies so everything it shows us about how humans react to storytelling is completely meaningless!' you are wrong and will pay for your crimes If you're wondering what my response to that study was, you could try reading what I posted. I'll be happy to discuss any specific points you might disagree on.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 04:39 |
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The thread is called 'spoilers don't ruin movies'. Are we allowed to expand the discussion beyond the thread title? I don't think anyone ITT has claimed that spoilers do "ruin" movies, only that not being spoiled changes how you experience it. You even admit, with some reluctance, that this is the case. Hbomberguy posted:And my response is 'I don't think that experience is fundamentally important, but regardless of anyone's personal views, I don't see why everyone's ability to discuss a film should be hamstrung to protect babies who haven't seen the film and yet want to take part in the discussion of a film they haven't seen' What about people who are not trying to take part in the discussion? The OP uses unprompted GoT spoilers as its only example. Do you think it's too stifling if someone tells you you not to shout "Snape kill Dumbledore" at people standing in line to purchase the latest Harry Potter?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 17:48
|
|