|
It's been covered by the more serious posts in the thread, but yes, the issue is not that a film is necessarily -worse- when you know certain things about it, but that you're taking away an experience you can never get back in some cases, when a movie is crafted to purposely manipulate your expectations. The Prestige is a great example, because the film is partially commentary on how films are presented to an audience. It's great to watch something like The Prestige once you know what is going on and recognize how things were in front of your face the entire time, but it's also fun that first time in watching the film like the magic trick that it intends to be on the first watch. Going in knowing what happens is like observing a magician when you already know how they do the trick. You can be appreciative of the craft, but you aren't drawn in in the same manner, and miss the "how did he do this" response of seeing it without. There are case, like Usual Suspects, where there's nothing much to the movie besides the twist, but that's something else entirely.
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
I'm slightly annoyed that I never saw Psycho the way Hitchcock intended due to being popular culture spoiled years later (and other movies copying many of the groundbreaking at the time things later). That must have been such a ridiculously great, jarring experience. Even though I "appreciate" it now, I missed out on a whole lot of emotions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:To be fair there's a pretty dope cameo at the end of Kevin Costner's Robin Hood Prince of Thieves that I wouldn't want anyone to spoil for me. It was a nice surprise and a fun moment. Spoiling the 21 Jump Street cameos would have probably cost me a laugh as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I didn't like it. It seemed really heavy-handed and the plot threads never came together in a satisfying way. I feel like I somehow missed half of the show while watching it. Season 2 was the peak. The big appeal for the show was more that the visuals/cinematography was so far ahead of almost anything you see on TV.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
When people say "ruin," it's probably either hyperbole or them badly expressing their feelings, where they meant to say, "you caused me to miss out on the really fun, surprised, 'holy poo poo' reaction I would have had otherwise." It's important to try to figure out what people are TRYING to say and argue that as opposed to what they actually say sometimes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
You're basically strawmanning by creating a false dichotomy. The argument is: "spoiling key moments in films can take away an entire viewing experience from that person that can never be attained again because foreknowledge can alter the emotional impact of the narrative." There is no way to disagree with that, and you know it, so instead of conceding that, you're strawmanning the argument by changing it into a binary "it ruins the entire movie" so you don't have to concede the other viewpoint. Everyone sees this, btw.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
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'. You stated this: quote: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. In response to a discussion about it by default changing an experience for some people. You're arguing against a point nobody is talking about. That's not talking about fallacies to "sound smart" (ad hominem, btw), it's defining what you're doing, which is creating a strawman argument that no one you're talking about it with holds or is talking about. Earlier in this thread, Psycho, The Prestige, and others were used as prime examples. Many of us have never experienced the shock and awe reactions that people in the 60s were lucky to experience when they first saw Psycho because the major shocking moments have become so firmly entrenched in pop culture (and it changed how movies were shaped since). We get the joy of being able to analyze it after the fact, yes, but unlike our parents/grandparents, we don't get to experience those emotions AND analyze it. They get to look at it knowing what happens AND look at it from the lens of not knowing - we don't. Therefore, knowing this, it's good to err on the side of not being a dick when talking about media. You can be a dick if you want to be a dick and take away experiences from people, but you're being a dick, and it's probably better to not be a dick. I also don't take "ruin movies" seriously when people use those terms (which most aren't, in this thread). Most people on the Internet talk in short-form hyperbole, so arguing the hyperbole as if it's the actual opinion is often useless.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Why is it incumbent on the people who have seen the text to protect the people who haven't seen the text from spoilers? If you're invested in experiencing the emotional impact of a text's plot twist, and that text is out in the wild and readily accessible, then why isn't it squarely on you to be diligent in avoiding spoilers? We've kind of expanded the discussion beyond the initial example(s), though. I don't think that anyone would call someone a dick for talking about Star Wars freely a month after it came out. However, people that post "shocking moments" widely on social media for TV and movies IMMEDIATELY after seeing it as a status update are being dickish. The line varies depending on the situation, but rule of thumb is basically the line where the onus on avoiding spoilers shifts to a reasonable level. And also, what -is- a spoiler shifts greatly as well. Most people would not call someone a dick for mentioning that Han Solo is in Star Wars since that was part of the media blitz of the movie, but talking about the "truth" of Angier/Borden/etc. in The Prestige to someone who you don't know saw the movie is another level entirely. Darko fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
computer parts posted:That leads to an interesting situation - say you've gotten spoiled about three elements of the movie, however two of them are fake. Is that not a unique viewing experience? Should we try to post fake spoilers everywhere so people will be surprised when they're not actually in the movie? You're still affecting their viewing of the movie by weighting it with distracting anticipation. In fact, even saying a movie even has a twist can mess with a viewing because people naturally start looking for cues when they wouldn't necessarily be looking otherwise (if the movie is crafted in order to skew with viewer perceptions, I'd say that seeing it as intended once provides a completely different outlook).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 19:04
|
|