I never said anything about anything being the antithesis of anything! I said I'm free to watch movies purely for personal enjoyment. That's it. Nothing more. I didn't make any claim to levels of intelligence, you did. I didn't say anything about smartness or ignorance or anything, you did.
IF I had to watch THREE movies per week for academic reasons and write reports on them AND watch a few movies per week purely for personal enjoyment, I'd be okay with reading more deeply into the academia selected movies. But the ones I'm watching for personal enjoyment? I'd rather watch them on my own terms.
So are you saying you don't get as much enjoyment from reading deeply into things as you do from having a shallow experience from a position of ignorance?
Stop. Just stop. This conversation is obviously beyond your reading comprehension or you're intentionally trolling.
Wait, people don't like the Sixth Sense? I only saw it once but I remember it being a really good movie. The ending really surprised me!
How many times am I meant to have watched it?
There's nothing to that movie besides the cheap surprise. It's not much better than a house of mirrors at a traveling carnival.
So, nothing on the protagonist's journey of self-reflection, self-isolation, and the realization that he had in life disconnected from others so profoundly that he never even realized he was dead?
That movie isn't the greatest movie ever made, but it's by no means a cheap movie.
If it's so great, wouldn't you want to watch it again?
If there's more to appreciate, that you couldn't in one sitting. Or if want to relive the feelings it gave you. To share the experience with another person.
I never said anything about anything being the antithesis of anything! I said I'm free to watch movies purely for personal enjoyment. That's it. Nothing more. I didn't make any claim to levels of intelligence, you did. I didn't say anything about smartness or ignorance or anything, you did.
IF I had to watch THREE movies per week for academic reasons and write reports on them AND watch a few movies per week purely for personal enjoyment, I'd be okay with reading more deeply into the academia selected movies. But the ones I'm watching for personal enjoyment? I'd rather watch them on my own terms.
So are you saying you don't get as much enjoyment from reading deeply into things as you do from having a shallow experience from a position of ignorance?
Stop. Just stop. This conversation is obviously beyond your reading comprehension or you're intentionally trolling.
Well, you never made any other argument other than to insult me directly, so I thought that was what I was supposed to start doing.
Wait, people don't like the Sixth Sense? I only saw it once but I remember it being a really good movie. The ending really surprised me!
How many times am I meant to have watched it?
There's nothing to that movie besides the cheap surprise. It's not much better than a house of mirrors at a traveling carnival.
So, nothing on the protagonist's journey of self-reflection, self-isolation, and the realization that he had in life disconnected from others so profoundly that he never even realized he was dead?
That movie isn't the greatest movie ever made, but it's by no means a cheap movie.
One could similarly describe the protagonist's journey in any genero-comedy, or even in Initial D. Sixth Sense does not execute on that well enough to be great, relative to any other movie. The only reason anyone remembers it is the cheap thrill of its surprise reveal.
There's a reason it comes up in every spoiler discussion ever. It is absolutely true that the movie can be spoiled. It completely falls flat if you watch it from any other position besides ignorance. My argument is not that it can't be spoiled. The argument is that because it can be spoiled, it is not worth watching in the first place. Having it spoiled is a fine substitute for actually watching it. It takes a lot less time, and you can watch something better instead.
Your argument is still extremely personal and entirely subjective.
Do you disagree that a work is experienced differently depending on the level of familiarity of the consumer?
Every work is experienced differently by every human being every time it is experienced. So-called spoilers aren't any different from any of the other myriad factors that will modify someone's experience of a work.
Someone grew up in a conservative household, and now you have a different experience watching South Park. Can they blame your parents for spoiling it?
Someone grew up reading Donald Duck comics had a different experience watching Duck Tales. Should they not have read them?
Someone watched a sad movie after a long tiring day and had a bad experience. Was their bad day a spoiler?
Someone with a short attention span had a bad experience watching 2001 with their friends. Were their genetics/upbringing a spoiler?
Your genetics and every single experience you have had up until and including the point of experiencing something will color that experience. Nobody can erase their mind or hand-craft their entire life from the beginning. There is no such thing as an un-spoiled experience. Protecting this myth is pointless. The experience each person has is uniquely their own and appreciated as is.
Wow, right to low-level solipsism-esque reductionist drivel I see. That's your argument against this?
The point is that there is no reason to take special care to modify your actions to avoid affecting someone's potential future experience with an individual work of art since literally every interaction you have with a person modifies every experience they have for the rest of their entire lives.
Everything I've said so far still stands. A work of art is either worthwhile or not based on its own merits. If something can be so easily ruined, then it is fragile and not worth it in the first place. Foreknowledge of a powerful experience is not a substitute for, and can not diminish, the experience itself. A feature of worthwhile experiences is that they are repeatable, and thus unspoilable. The stress caused by the culture of spoiler avoidance far outweighs any possible loss of joy if everyone spoiled everything. People get upset when they are spoiled because they believe they have been deprived of some great pleasure, but that belief is false. If you simply stop believing in spoilers and live comfortably, all of the upset caused by worrying about them will vanish.
Wow, right to low-level solipsism-esque reductionist drivel I see. That's your argument against this?
The point is that there is no reason to take special care to modify your actions to avoid affecting someone's potential future experience with an individual work of art since literally every interaction you have with a person modifies every experience they have for the rest of their entire lives.
Bullshit. It's all about, as all things in the universe are:
1. Degree 2. Scale
The degree of, say, one's experience in the day to that point is of low degree most of the time, and highly diffuse scale.
The degree of a specific significant piece of information related specifically to the work is high, and it's scale huge from the perspective of the consumption of the work.
Seeing Terminator 2 without initially knowing Arnold's motivations is a different, interesting experience compared to seeing it with that knowledge. By spoiling it, you remove the discovery aspect.
Seeing Utena the first time not knowing the fullness is a VASTLY different experience from the second viewing. Both are amazing. But spoiling the core elements of Utena removes a person's ability to ever experience the first flavor: the exploration, discovery, and attempts to understand. It's enjoyable to try to "solve" the show, an experience lost if someone solves it for you first.
Wow, right to low-level solipsism-esque reductionist drivel I see. That's your argument against this?
The point is that there is no reason to take special care to modify your actions to avoid affecting someone's potential future experience with an individual work of art since literally every interaction you have with a person modifies every experience they have for the rest of their entire lives.
Seeing Terminator 2 without initially knowing Arnold's motivations is a different, interesting experience compared to seeing it with that knowledge. By spoiling it, you remove the discovery aspect.
Seeing Utena the first time not knowing the fullness is a VASTLY different experience from the second viewing. Both are amazing. But spoiling the core elements of Utena removes a person's ability to ever experience the first flavor: the exploration, discovery, and attempts to understand. It's enjoyable to try to "solve" the show, an experience lost if someone solves it for you first.
The fact that both those works are still good despite having some sort of foreknowledge is proof that nothing has actually been spoiled.
The degree of difference in a Terminator 2 experience can also affected to a very large degree if one knows that Arnold later became governor of California, and the humor of that fact prevents someone from taking the movie seriously. Was learning the history of California a spoiler?
Also, the mere knowledge that Arnold is a good guy may slightly change the experience, but not entirely. There is no way to grok the meaning of that knowledge without actually seeing the movie, and thus the discovery still occurs. Just as seeing a video of the Sistine Chapel can not spoil the experience of actually visiting it. Just as seeing a video of someone skydiving does not spoil the experience of personally skydiving.
If something were to be spoiled to such an extent that the meaning was fully grok'd, then there was in fact no spoiler at all. The experience simply came earlier than anticipated. Perhaps the feeling of skydiving were so well described that it was perfectly recreated in ones imagination. Or perhaps there was a perfect VR skydiving simulation. Upon skydiving for real, it feels exactly as expected thanks to the foreknowledge, and nothing is discovered. Disappointment does occur because of the false belief that this was the first dive, and discovery did not occur. The truth is that this is the second dive, and the original discovery in the VR simulator was simply not appreciated.
EDIT: I see more has been added since I started writing this, some of which Rym has covered (i.e.: the stuff about both kinds of viewing experiences being different but still desirable for their own reasons), but I spent too long a time writing this post to scrap it, so nyeh. :P
If I was in your situation, studying movies academically, I'd do exactly the same thing. Thankfully I'm free to watch movies purely for personal enjoyment.
If I was in your situation, studying movies academically, I'd do exactly the same thing. Thankfully I'm free to watch movies purely for personal enjoyment.
Pretty much in agreement with this statement. There is a distinct difference in how you approach an activity between business and pleasure.
See, that's the thing, though: I don't just do that academically. For me, that kind of analysis is often business and pleasure. I don't want to do it for every movie I see because not every movie requires it, but when I'm in the mood to be analytical and find something substantial to say about what I'm seeing, my brain lights up with the thrill of discovery and interpretation, similar to how Luke lights up with pride as he figures out mysteries and puzzles in the plot. I seek that feeling whether I'm watching Godard or Ozu for a class, or something new in theatres like Nightcrawler or Birdman.
Granted, for Nightcrawler and Birdman, I did get to see those blind first, and I thoroughly enjoyed those experiences -- both movies take you on an amazing ride that can't be exactly replicated if you know what's up from the start, and I'm glad I got to see them that way. Still, I knew before going in that I was likely going to get to see those movies again with friends and family, so I was okay with assuming I could have my analysis-fest on a second viewing (which I've already done with Nightcrawler and will do soon with Birdman). Ideally speaking, I'd love to be able to have a blind experience followed by an analytical experience for all movies that merit it, like I said before; both are valuable and enjoyable to me for different reasons and I don't like sacrificing one for the other.
When forced to pick, though, and I'm pretty sure the film will be analysis-worthy, I feel like I lose the least when shooting for the in-depth experience from the get-go. I'm going to lament not having that "first high" so to speak, but as has been said, a great movie is still rewarding and enjoyable to watch even if you know what's going to happen, and between a thrill I'm only going to experience fully once and a complex process of discovery and piecing stuff together in my head that continues long after the movie itself is done, I prioritize the experience that lasts me longer and yields more intellectual fulfillment. Other people prioritize the former specifically because they can only experience it that way once, and that's 100% fine too (Scott). Just saying that Scott is not necessarily alone in prioritizing a fuller intellectual experience, and that it doesn't take a perfect robot to want that out of a movie for pure personal pleasure (which I feel like Luke came dangerously close to claiming).
You know what? Speaking of rides earlier? I think that's a better analogy for a good film than the one Scott gave. A good film (or book, or show, or whatever) isn't a castle -- it's a roller coaster. You can only experience the undiluted thrill of a given roller coaster once, because not only are you experiencing the sensations of the ride itself, you get the added feeling of not expecting them before they come. Sure, there's anticipation in some parts, like knowing there will be a big drop as you head up a steep hill (as in a movie, where you just know something is going to go down and you're just waiting as the tension ratchets up), but you don't know exactly how that particular drop will feel (do you know the exact angle? the exact height? the exact view from the peak you'll see?), or all the twists and loops and whatnot that come after it. The thrill of having an unfamiliar coaster rocket you along an unknown track is an experience all its own, and while you can ride the same coaster again and still have an amazing time -- an equally fun time even -- it is a different kind of ride the second time onward. Some people like the second kind of ride better -- maybe they prefer to focus on admiring the construction of the track as they go, or watching their friends' reactions as they approach certain parts, or riding while knowing some cool stuff about the people who originally built it, or even just appreciating the overall path of the track as they go through it again -- and some people understandably prefer the first kind, even though they still enjoy the second kind.
Answer me, something, Scott. Say you're going to ride an awesome new roller coaster that you've never seen in your life. You're waiting to get on, and then somehow in the line, someone magically accesses your brain and implants exact knowledge of the path of the track + the specific sensations that it will give you, robbing you of ever experiencing that coaster for the "first time", so to speak. Brain invasions aside, would you not be even a tiny bit disappointed by this, even if you knew you were still going to have a good time? If the answer is that you wouldn't be, that's fine, but can you then at least understand why someone else who wants to experience that unknown thrill of that coaster at least once in their lifetime -- while still acknowledging that the repeat experience is fun in its own way -- would be a bit disappointed in the same situation?
Answer me, something, Scott. Say you're going to ride an awesome new roller coaster that you've never seen in your life. You're waiting to get on, and then somehow in the line, someone magically accesses your brain and implants exact knowledge of the path of the track + the specific sensations that it will give you, robbing you of ever experiencing that coaster for the "first time", so to speak. Brain invasions aside, would you not be even a tiny bit disappointed by this, even if you knew you were still going to have a good time? If the answer is that you wouldn't be, that's fine, but can you then at least understand why someone else who wants to experience that unknown thrill of that coaster at least once in their lifetime -- while still acknowledging that the repeat experience is fun in its own way -- would be a bit disappointed in the same situation?
I actually have a perfect example for this!
I went to Universal Island of Adventure way way back in the day. They have a rollercoaster, I think it was Hulk themed. Yep, found it!
You might notice there is a tube covering the track on the ascent. Why is it there? It's because *SPOILERS* the train actually accelerates on the ascent! Completely the opposite of what you expect from a rollercoaster which usually has a slow and tension-filled ascent followed by the big drop.
Well, let me tell you. I was watching this rollercoaster from the ground, and based on the speed of the train coming out of the tunnel and timing of their screams, the jig was up.
So I rode this rollercoaster with this knowledge. Let me tell you, even if you know it's coming, no knowledge can prepare you for having your body accelerated at that speed through a tunnel. Knowledge could not possibly diminish that experience. As I said, the difference between seeing a video of someone skydiving and actually skydiving.
And you know what, the rollercoaster was pretty fun. When it's fun, and you get off, you immediately want to ride again. And when you ride again, it's still good the second time. A good rollercoaster will be fun even if you ride it over and over again. If you don't want to ride it over and over again, it wasn't worth riding in the first place.
If you want to talk about someone implanting a perfect memory of riding it in my brain, then I addressed that in my previous post. The first "real" ride is actually your second ride. You had the "unspoiled" experience already just like Neo actually learned Kung-Fu.
The only thing that can ruin the experience of riding a good coaster is riding a great one, but that's a separate issue we have oft discussed in the past.
Scott, you're a Giants fan. Imagine I have magical future prediction powers, and I can tell you the G-Men beat the Eagles 24-10? Would you still watch that game? If you did, would your enjoyment be diminished at least a smidge?
Scott, you're a Giants fan. Imagine I have magical future prediction powers, and I can tell you the G-Men beat the Eagles 24-10? Would you still watch that game? If you did, would your enjoyment be diminished at least a smidge?
No. You're talking to someone who watched whole seasons of F1 races already knowing the results due to time zones.
Also MSG used to rebroadcast Rangers games the day after, (they might still do this). They edited the games for time with less commercials and cut out boring parts like people skating across for icing or penalties. When I lived with cable, I often watched those instead of the live game (of which I knew the result). I would even rewatch games I saw live if they were particularly good.
Now if you told me it was a boring game, I might not watch and be thankful I didn't have to waste my time. If you told me it was an exciting game, I'd definitely want to see what happened with my own eyes.
Here, let's do an experiment.
This is The Rumble in the Jungle. George Foreman vs Muhammad Ali, 1974. At the time, George Foreman was undefeated. Ali was old. Foreman had totally wrecked both Frazier and Norton, who were the only two people to have beaten Ali in the past. Foreman was 25 years old, Ali was 32. Young strong man vs. washed up old man. Ali hadn't held the title since before he dodged the draft many years earlier. Ali pulls a stunning upset and wins by knockout in the 8th round.
Now watch it.
I spoiled this just about as much as a thing can be spoiled. Did knowing all that information about what you were going to see make it more or less glorious to behold?
Also MSG used to rebroadcast Rangers games the day after, (they might still do this). They edited the games for time with less commercials and cut out boring parts like people skating across for icing or penalties.
I've seen this done to baseball games. Whole game is like 30 minutes. It was bizarre and kind of cool.
Rumble in the Jungle. Point taken, but that's an all-time classic fight. Like top what, 3 ever? I was talking about something more pedestrian. Surely there's middle ground between the greatest ever and worthless and a waste of your time.
Well, I can say that I did not experience sudden surprise on 8th round as I was waiting for the knockout. Had I not known about it, it would have been probably more shocking and surprising.
Thus you denied me an positive emotional experience.
The problem with your experiment Scott is that you have picked a historic fight, one of the all time greatest fights. That fight is not about the destination it is about the journey.
Go back to the 80's when Mike Tyson was the hotness and was undefeated. His earlier fights made mad money on pay per view even though the fact that he would KO his opponents quickly was known by everyone. Back then we would wager not on who would win but how many rounds the fight would go. For those fights there was always a chance that he might lose but the thrill was watching the man work. We did not watch to see who wins so spoiling the fight by telling us who the winner was is not really spoiling it. In that sense I agree with you. If the journey is the engaging part of the experience the experience is hard to spoil.
When it comes to weekly sports games that are not championship level games, well those can be seen as one small step in the journey. Steps that may not even go anywhere if the team is not that great. Those games are more about the final score than the play by play. Exceptions exist for truly amazing plays and upsets but in general, knowing the final score ruins the experience of watching the game.
Look at Sixth Sense for a moment. Having the truth of the characters revealed prior to seeing the movie (or on a second viewing) completely changes the viewing experience. The experience of figuring this out on your own has been denied to you. You may not care but some of us do.
The ending of Planet of the Apes when Heston sees the head of the statue. Knowing the ending ahead of time doesn't spoil the movie because that reveal is not that important to the journey he went on over the course of the film.
Where I will also agree with you is that a movie that is so easily spoiled is not a very good movie. So what? Sometimes we like to kick back and watch stupid movies.
Also MSG used to rebroadcast Rangers games the day after, (they might still do this). They edited the games for time with less commercials and cut out boring parts like people skating across for icing or penalties.
Rumble in the Jungle. Point taken, but that's an all-time classic fight. Like top what, 3 ever? I was talking about something more pedestrian. Surely there's middle ground between the greatest ever and worthless and a waste of your time.
So you agree that spoilable works of art are pedestrian?
Well, I can say that I did not experience sudden surprise on 8th round as I was waiting for the knockout. Had I not known about it, it would have been probably more shocking and surprising.
Thus you denied me an positive emotional experience.
You don't know that at all. The announcers predicted the whole thing. In the fourth round they said Ali will win within four rounds, and he did. You have no evidence to suggest how you would have felt. Your belief that that positive emotional experience is entirely based on faith.
Even if you are correct, and you were denied some positive surprise, was the entire experience ruined? Was it not glorious to behold? Was it no longer enjoyable to watch at all because you knew some information? Were there perhaps additional positive emotion added due to you being a more informed viewer thanks to the spoiler?
The problem with your experiment Scott is that you have picked a historic fight, one of the all time greatest fights. That fight is not about the destination it is about the journey.
...
Where I will also agree with you is that a movie that is so easily spoiled is not a very good movie. So what? Sometimes we like to kick back and watch stupid movies.
Isn't everything about the journey? I picked the historic fight on purpose to prove my point, which you seem to agree with. Truly great things can not be spoiled. Therefore, spoilers do not exist. You also seem to agree that things that can be spoiled are not good to begin with. Where you are mistaken is that somehow the enjoyment of something bad can be ruined by a spoiler. The bad thing is already bad! How can a spoiler make it worse? If you like the stupid movie, you'll like it spoiled or not.
I watch stupid things too. I'm watching Yowapedal, seriously. Go ahead and spoil it. This shit is as predictable as the tides.
Additional evidence: Every movie trailer these days spoils the ever living fuck out of the movie. People see those trailers, then they see the movies, and they still like those movies.
You don't know that at all. The announcers predicted the whole thing. In the fourth round they said Ali will win within four rounds, and he did. You have no evidence to suggest how you would have felt. Your belief that that positive emotional experience is entirely based on faith.
Even if you are correct, and you were denied some positive surprise, was the entire experience ruined? Was it not glorious to behold? Was it no longer enjoyable to watch at all because you knew some information? Were there perhaps additional positive emotion added due to you being a more informed viewer thanks to the spoiler?
In any case you denied me a possible and even probable chance of getting surprised.
Also the point isn't that the spoiler ruins the experience, the point is that spoiler changes the view experience and denies the other person the unique experience of watching something unspoiled. For I'm sure that knowing that knockout happens at 8th round did not increase my enjoyment at least.
You don't know that at all. The announcers predicted the whole thing. In the fourth round they said Ali will win within four rounds, and he did. You have no evidence to suggest how you would have felt. Your belief that that positive emotional experience is entirely based on faith.
Even if you are correct, and you were denied some positive surprise, was the entire experience ruined? Was it not glorious to behold? Was it no longer enjoyable to watch at all because you knew some information? Were there perhaps additional positive emotion added due to you being a more informed viewer thanks to the spoiler?
In any case you denied me a possible and even probable chance of getting surprised.
Also the point isn't that the spoiler ruins the experience, the point is that spoiler changes the view experience and denies the other person the unique experience of watching something unspoiled. For I'm sure that knowing that knockout happens at 8th round did not increase my enjoyment at least.
You can't say that it didn't increase your enjoyment since you have no way to know how much you would have enjoyed it without that knowledge. The question is simply whether or not you enjoyed it with the knowledge. If you did, then it wasn't spoiled, was it?
Yes. Nothing can ever be known. Nothing can be proven. We truly can not know things, for all is filtered by our own experience and memories. We are just solipsistic beings bumbling in the dark, incapable of ever discovering true knowledge.
Yes. Nothing can ever be known. Nothing can be proven. We truly can not know things, for all is filtered by our own experience and memories. We are just solipsistic beings bumbling in the dark, incapable of ever discovering true knowledge.
Sure.
How often do you see a thing once, like it, and then never like it again afterwards? The vast majority of the time if people like something, they like it multiple times. If they don't like something, they don't like it any times. If you like something more than once, you like it with complete knowledge. Therefore, if you like something, you still like it, even with spoilers. If you don't like it, you won't like it even without spoilers. The idea that you have been robbed of some experience is completely a matter of faith.
The bad feeling comes not from actually any diminished joy from the spoiler affecting the work, but from a false belief that you have been robbed of something. If you simply stop believing this, spoilers will cease to affect you in a negative way.
It's like a conservative person who gets upset if you say curse words. The words make them upset simply because they believe there is some dark power to those words.
Yes. Nothing can ever be known. Nothing can be proven. We truly can not know things, for all is filtered by our own experience and memories. We are just solipsistic beings bumbling in the dark, incapable of ever discovering true knowledge.
Sure.
How often do you see a thing once, like it, and then never like it again afterwards? The vast majority of the time if people like something, they like it multiple times. If they don't like something, they don't like it any times. If you like something more than once, you like it with complete knowledge. Therefore, if you like something, you still like it, even with spoilers. If you don't like it, you won't like it even without spoilers. The idea that you have been robbed of some experience is completely a matter of faith.
The bad feeling comes not from actually any diminished joy from the spoiler affecting the work, but from a false belief that you have been robbed of something. If you simply stop believing this, spoilers will cease to affect you in a negative way.
It's like a conservative person who gets upset if you say curse words. The words make them upset simply because they believe there is some dark power to those words.
You talk like there was only one experience you could get out of watching something. As if watching something again rewrote your previous experience of watching it with a newer version. The different feelings, experiences and memories from watching a thing multiple times are all valid and can all exist at the same time.
Also why do you cling to the belief that spoilers taking something away from the experience is false belief. Many people have stated that it isn't so. You even did an experiment which resulted me calling your bullshit. And still you cling on that personal idea of yours that taking away the feeling of being surprised at something is not real.
Also why do you cling to the belief that spoilers taking something away from the experience is false belief. Many people have stated that it isn't so. You even did an experiment which resulted me calling your bullshit. And still you cling on that personal idea of yours that taking away the feeling of being surprised at something is not real.
In this universe you watched it with information and had a particular experience. In good faith I must take at face value any statement you make about what feelings or thoughts you have had in this universe.
You then made a claim about what would have happened in some alternate universe. You can not possibly know what happened in some alternate universe. You could just as easily claim that had I not posted that video, you would have done some other activity that resulted in you getting fabulously wealthy and that I am responsible for your great financial loss.
You have absolutely no evidence to support any statement you make about what would have happened in some alternate timeline. All you have is a belief about what would have happened based entirely on faith.
You have absolutely no evidence to support any statement you make about what would have happened in some alternate timeline. All you have is a belief about what would have happened based entirely on faith.
Which also completely destroys your own argument.
Somewhere, in an alternative timeline, Scott is arguing against spoilers and pointing to the spoiler event as occurring in some other timeline...
In another timeline, Scott isn't approaching every single situation as a blank slate, and has learned to learn from his own past experiences. You know, like everyone else does.
It's a statistical thing. When watching a new movie, I REALLY like being surprised by everything that happens. I'd never seen a trailer for the Matrix going in, and while I knew it was about virtual worlds, I'd not seen any of the cool special effects before. I REALLY like seeing big special effects moments for the first time in context, on the big screen. Same with Interstellar.
When I see movies after watching the trailer, I never feel the same way about those big surprising moments.
You can say I can't know for sure, but I can be pretty sure. When it gets to the point that EVERY movie I see without seeing trailers I enjoy in a specific way in those big moments not revealed in the trailer... and that I NEVER experience those moments when watching a movie after seeing the same shots in the trailers.... what am I to conclude?
That random chance shakes out that, over the course of the hundreds of movies I've seen on either side of this, that it JUST SO HAPPENS that those situations don't overlap?
Comments
I choose once.
That movie isn't the greatest movie ever made, but it's by no means a cheap movie.
There's a reason it comes up in every spoiler discussion ever. It is absolutely true that the movie can be spoiled. It completely falls flat if you watch it from any other position besides ignorance. My argument is not that it can't be spoiled. The argument is that because it can be spoiled, it is not worth watching in the first place. Having it spoiled is a fine substitute for actually watching it. It takes a lot less time, and you can watch something better instead.
Do you disagree that a work is experienced differently depending on the level of familiarity of the consumer?
Someone grew up in a conservative household, and now you have a different experience watching South Park. Can they blame your parents for spoiling it?
Someone grew up reading Donald Duck comics had a different experience watching Duck Tales. Should they not have read them?
Someone watched a sad movie after a long tiring day and had a bad experience. Was their bad day a spoiler?
Someone with a short attention span had a bad experience watching 2001 with their friends. Were their genetics/upbringing a spoiler?
Your genetics and every single experience you have had up until and including the point of experiencing something will color that experience. Nobody can erase their mind or hand-craft their entire life from the beginning. There is no such thing as an un-spoiled experience. Protecting this myth is pointless. The experience each person has is uniquely their own and appreciated as is.
Everything I've said so far still stands. A work of art is either worthwhile or not based on its own merits. If something can be so easily ruined, then it is fragile and not worth it in the first place. Foreknowledge of a powerful experience is not a substitute for, and can not diminish, the experience itself. A feature of worthwhile experiences is that they are repeatable, and thus unspoilable. The stress caused by the culture of spoiler avoidance far outweighs any possible loss of joy if everyone spoiled everything. People get upset when they are spoiled because they believe they have been deprived of some great pleasure, but that belief is false. If you simply stop believing in spoilers and live comfortably, all of the upset caused by worrying about them will vanish.
1. Degree
2. Scale
The degree of, say, one's experience in the day to that point is of low degree most of the time, and highly diffuse scale.
The degree of a specific significant piece of information related specifically to the work is high, and it's scale huge from the perspective of the consumption of the work.
Seeing Terminator 2 without initially knowing Arnold's motivations is a different, interesting experience compared to seeing it with that knowledge. By spoiling it, you remove the discovery aspect.
Seeing Utena the first time not knowing the fullness is a VASTLY different experience from the second viewing. Both are amazing. But spoiling the core elements of Utena removes a person's ability to ever experience the first flavor: the exploration, discovery, and attempts to understand. It's enjoyable to try to "solve" the show, an experience lost if someone solves it for you first.
The degree of difference in a Terminator 2 experience can also affected to a very large degree if one knows that Arnold later became governor of California, and the humor of that fact prevents someone from taking the movie seriously. Was learning the history of California a spoiler?
Also, the mere knowledge that Arnold is a good guy may slightly change the experience, but not entirely. There is no way to grok the meaning of that knowledge without actually seeing the movie, and thus the discovery still occurs. Just as seeing a video of the Sistine Chapel can not spoil the experience of actually visiting it. Just as seeing a video of someone skydiving does not spoil the experience of personally skydiving.
If something were to be spoiled to such an extent that the meaning was fully grok'd, then there was in fact no spoiler at all. The experience simply came earlier than anticipated. Perhaps the feeling of skydiving were so well described that it was perfectly recreated in ones imagination. Or perhaps there was a perfect VR skydiving simulation. Upon skydiving for real, it feels exactly as expected thanks to the foreknowledge, and nothing is discovered. Disappointment does occur because of the false belief that this was the first dive, and discovery did not occur. The truth is that this is the second dive, and the original discovery in the VR simulator was simply not appreciated.
Granted, for Nightcrawler and Birdman, I did get to see those blind first, and I thoroughly enjoyed those experiences -- both movies take you on an amazing ride that can't be exactly replicated if you know what's up from the start, and I'm glad I got to see them that way. Still, I knew before going in that I was likely going to get to see those movies again with friends and family, so I was okay with assuming I could have my analysis-fest on a second viewing (which I've already done with Nightcrawler and will do soon with Birdman). Ideally speaking, I'd love to be able to have a blind experience followed by an analytical experience for all movies that merit it, like I said before; both are valuable and enjoyable to me for different reasons and I don't like sacrificing one for the other.
When forced to pick, though, and I'm pretty sure the film will be analysis-worthy, I feel like I lose the least when shooting for the in-depth experience from the get-go. I'm going to lament not having that "first high" so to speak, but as has been said, a great movie is still rewarding and enjoyable to watch even if you know what's going to happen, and between a thrill I'm only going to experience fully once and a complex process of discovery and piecing stuff together in my head that continues long after the movie itself is done, I prioritize the experience that lasts me longer and yields more intellectual fulfillment. Other people prioritize the former specifically because they can only experience it that way once, and that's 100% fine too (Scott). Just saying that Scott is not necessarily alone in prioritizing a fuller intellectual experience, and that it doesn't take a perfect robot to want that out of a movie for pure personal pleasure (which I feel like Luke came dangerously close to claiming).
You know what? Speaking of rides earlier? I think that's a better analogy for a good film than the one Scott gave. A good film (or book, or show, or whatever) isn't a castle -- it's a roller coaster. You can only experience the undiluted thrill of a given roller coaster once, because not only are you experiencing the sensations of the ride itself, you get the added feeling of not expecting them before they come. Sure, there's anticipation in some parts, like knowing there will be a big drop as you head up a steep hill (as in a movie, where you just know something is going to go down and you're just waiting as the tension ratchets up), but you don't know exactly how that particular drop will feel (do you know the exact angle? the exact height? the exact view from the peak you'll see?), or all the twists and loops and whatnot that come after it. The thrill of having an unfamiliar coaster rocket you along an unknown track is an experience all its own, and while you can ride the same coaster again and still have an amazing time -- an equally fun time even -- it is a different kind of ride the second time onward. Some people like the second kind of ride better -- maybe they prefer to focus on admiring the construction of the track as they go, or watching their friends' reactions as they approach certain parts, or riding while knowing some cool stuff about the people who originally built it, or even just appreciating the overall path of the track as they go through it again -- and some people understandably prefer the first kind, even though they still enjoy the second kind.
Answer me, something, Scott. Say you're going to ride an awesome new roller coaster that you've never seen in your life. You're waiting to get on, and then somehow in the line, someone magically accesses your brain and implants exact knowledge of the path of the track + the specific sensations that it will give you, robbing you of ever experiencing that coaster for the "first time", so to speak. Brain invasions aside, would you not be even a tiny bit disappointed by this, even if you knew you were still going to have a good time? If the answer is that you wouldn't be, that's fine, but can you then at least understand why someone else who wants to experience that unknown thrill of that coaster at least once in their lifetime -- while still acknowledging that the repeat experience is fun in its own way -- would be a bit disappointed in the same situation?
In news related to the spoiler argument, I submit this:
I went to Universal Island of Adventure way way back in the day. They have a rollercoaster, I think it was Hulk themed. Yep, found it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredible_Hulk_(roller_coaster)
You might notice there is a tube covering the track on the ascent. Why is it there? It's because *SPOILERS* the train actually accelerates on the ascent! Completely the opposite of what you expect from a rollercoaster which usually has a slow and tension-filled ascent followed by the big drop.
Well, let me tell you. I was watching this rollercoaster from the ground, and based on the speed of the train coming out of the tunnel and timing of their screams, the jig was up.
So I rode this rollercoaster with this knowledge. Let me tell you, even if you know it's coming, no knowledge can prepare you for having your body accelerated at that speed through a tunnel. Knowledge could not possibly diminish that experience. As I said, the difference between seeing a video of someone skydiving and actually skydiving.
And you know what, the rollercoaster was pretty fun. When it's fun, and you get off, you immediately want to ride again. And when you ride again, it's still good the second time. A good rollercoaster will be fun even if you ride it over and over again. If you don't want to ride it over and over again, it wasn't worth riding in the first place.
If you want to talk about someone implanting a perfect memory of riding it in my brain, then I addressed that in my previous post. The first "real" ride is actually your second ride. You had the "unspoiled" experience already just like Neo actually learned Kung-Fu.
The only thing that can ruin the experience of riding a good coaster is riding a great one, but that's a separate issue we have oft discussed in the past.
Also MSG used to rebroadcast Rangers games the day after, (they might still do this). They edited the games for time with less commercials and cut out boring parts like people skating across for icing or penalties. When I lived with cable, I often watched those instead of the live game (of which I knew the result). I would even rewatch games I saw live if they were particularly good.
Now if you told me it was a boring game, I might not watch and be thankful I didn't have to waste my time. If you told me it was an exciting game, I'd definitely want to see what happened with my own eyes.
Here, let's do an experiment.
This is The Rumble in the Jungle. George Foreman vs Muhammad Ali, 1974. At the time, George Foreman was undefeated. Ali was old. Foreman had totally wrecked both Frazier and Norton, who were the only two people to have beaten Ali in the past. Foreman was 25 years old, Ali was 32. Young strong man vs. washed up old man. Ali hadn't held the title since before he dodged the draft many years earlier. Ali pulls a stunning upset and wins by knockout in the 8th round.
Now watch it.
I spoiled this just about as much as a thing can be spoiled. Did knowing all that information about what you were going to see make it more or less glorious to behold?
Rumble in the Jungle. Point taken, but that's an all-time classic fight. Like top what, 3 ever? I was talking about something more pedestrian. Surely there's middle ground between the greatest ever and worthless and a waste of your time.
Thus you denied me an positive emotional experience.
Go back to the 80's when Mike Tyson was the hotness and was undefeated. His earlier fights made mad money on pay per view even though the fact that he would KO his opponents quickly was known by everyone. Back then we would wager not on who would win but how many rounds the fight would go. For those fights there was always a chance that he might lose but the thrill was watching the man work. We did not watch to see who wins so spoiling the fight by telling us who the winner was is not really spoiling it. In that sense I agree with you. If the journey is the engaging part of the experience the experience is hard to spoil.
When it comes to weekly sports games that are not championship level games, well those can be seen as one small step in the journey. Steps that may not even go anywhere if the team is not that great. Those games are more about the final score than the play by play. Exceptions exist for truly amazing plays and upsets but in general, knowing the final score ruins the experience of watching the game.
Look at Sixth Sense for a moment. Having the truth of the characters revealed prior to seeing the movie (or on a second viewing) completely changes the viewing experience. The experience of figuring this out on your own has been denied to you. You may not care but some of us do.
The ending of Planet of the Apes when Heston sees the head of the statue. Knowing the ending ahead of time doesn't spoil the movie because that reveal is not that important to the journey he went on over the course of the film.
Where I will also agree with you is that a movie that is so easily spoiled is not a very good movie. So what? Sometimes we like to kick back and watch stupid movies.
Even if you are correct, and you were denied some positive surprise, was the entire experience ruined? Was it not glorious to behold? Was it no longer enjoyable to watch at all because you knew some information? Were there perhaps additional positive emotion added due to you being a more informed viewer thanks to the spoiler? Isn't everything about the journey? I picked the historic fight on purpose to prove my point, which you seem to agree with. Truly great things can not be spoiled. Therefore, spoilers do not exist. You also seem to agree that things that can be spoiled are not good to begin with. Where you are mistaken is that somehow the enjoyment of something bad can be ruined by a spoiler. The bad thing is already bad! How can a spoiler make it worse? If you like the stupid movie, you'll like it spoiled or not.
I watch stupid things too. I'm watching Yowapedal, seriously. Go ahead and spoil it. This shit is as predictable as the tides.
Additional evidence: Every movie trailer these days spoils the ever living fuck out of the movie. People see those trailers, then they see the movies, and they still like those movies.
Also the point isn't that the spoiler ruins the experience, the point is that spoiler changes the view experience and denies the other person the unique experience of watching something unspoiled. For I'm sure that knowing that knockout happens at 8th round did not increase my enjoyment at least.
Sure.
The bad feeling comes not from actually any diminished joy from the spoiler affecting the work, but from a false belief that you have been robbed of something. If you simply stop believing this, spoilers will cease to affect you in a negative way.
It's like a conservative person who gets upset if you say curse words. The words make them upset simply because they believe there is some dark power to those words.
Also why do you cling to the belief that spoilers taking something away from the experience is false belief. Many people have stated that it isn't so. You even did an experiment which resulted me calling your bullshit. And still you cling on that personal idea of yours that taking away the feeling of being surprised at something is not real.
You then made a claim about what would have happened in some alternate universe. You can not possibly know what happened in some alternate universe. You could just as easily claim that had I not posted that video, you would have done some other activity that resulted in you getting fabulously wealthy and that I am responsible for your great financial loss.
You have absolutely no evidence to support any statement you make about what would have happened in some alternate timeline. All you have is a belief about what would have happened based entirely on faith.
Somewhere, in an alternative timeline, Scott is arguing against spoilers and pointing to the spoiler event as occurring in some other timeline...
It's a statistical thing. When watching a new movie, I REALLY like being surprised by everything that happens. I'd never seen a trailer for the Matrix going in, and while I knew it was about virtual worlds, I'd not seen any of the cool special effects before. I REALLY like seeing big special effects moments for the first time in context, on the big screen. Same with Interstellar.
When I see movies after watching the trailer, I never feel the same way about those big surprising moments.
You can say I can't know for sure, but I can be pretty sure. When it gets to the point that EVERY movie I see without seeing trailers I enjoy in a specific way in those big moments not revealed in the trailer... and that I NEVER experience those moments when watching a movie after seeing the same shots in the trailers.... what am I to conclude?
That random chance shakes out that, over the course of the hundreds of movies I've seen on either side of this, that it JUST SO HAPPENS that those situations don't overlap?
Get a clue.