Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
GeekNights Thursday - Predator
Tonight on GeekNights, we have us some fun with Predator (1987), the classic Arnold movie whose cast brought us not one, but two US state governors. In the news, Yuu Miyake is performing at MAGFest 2015, we (GeekNights) are performing at PAX South 2015 that same weekend, and the social media "years in review" aren't always the best for people whose years weren't so great.
Download MP3Source Link
Comments
Also, now I wanna write an Abort Retry Fail style game for Predator where everyone who dies starts contributing to controlling the Predator so its actions get more and more scatterbrained the more people it turns into trophies.
(Aing is not weak to any alignment)
And yet I've never seen Alien or Terminator.
Even so, that experience pales in comparison to the experience if you had been informed. Instead of wondering what lies behind various doors, you can fully appreciate the genius of the architects and their clever construction. Oh how smart they were to place such rooms in the most defensible locations! The bed you lay in will be no less comfortable, and you can experience the wonder of knowing the Great King had also once laid there. Rather than try to puzzle over artefacts, you can fully appreciate that boring looking sword when you know it predates the Holy Roman Empire and was forged by such clever means so long ago.
But what if the truth wasn't so great? What if you learn the castle is a fake. That sword is a fake replica made last week. Nobody meaningful ever slept in this castle. It's new construction just made to look like a castle. The cheap thrills you had when you were ignorant are now gone, but you are still better off for it. You have learned this castle isn't worth visiting.
If a work of art of any kind can be ruined by knowing more information about it, then it is not worth your time in the first place.
Truly great works of art are only enhanced, not diminished, as you learn more about them.
Knowing more true information about anything whatsoever can only make life better in all regards, especially the experience of art. There is nothing ever to be gained from ignorance that is worth gaining.
When spoilers don't matter, consuming information.
There's an endorphin reward in either case.
Personally, I tend to find that the less likely I am to be looking into a work for deeper meaning, the more I care about avoiding spoilers.
I think this is due to exactly the kinds of things Luke talks about in his post: for works where I'm pretty sure my main goal is to be entertained or to experience some kind of emotion (be it laughter, sadness, surprise, or whatever), I want to make sure that that goal is fulfilled first and foremost. That goal is indeed served best by making sure that I see a thing fresh and experience its emotional beats as they come, not as I anticipate them. So naturally, I'm going to want to avoid seeing too many trailers, social media posts, Tumblr gifs, etc. related to those things.
Usually I can tell the kinds of movies or shows that fit this category before I see them. Like I know that, say, 22 Jump Street is going to be all about being caught off-guard by the timing of the clever jokes and sight gags -- not so much about reading a subtle commentary on the human condition or complex layers of symbolism or whatever. Or, say, I know the draw of a movie like The Babadook is mainly going to be about experiencing deep dread and an experiential atmosphere of horror. There's probably going to be some cool symbolism and technically impressive imagery, but not so much that I can't reflect on those things as I'm watching or later after the fact. Not so much that I would compromise my initial emotional experience of going into the film blind. If I really find I want to appreciate some finer nuances or behind-the-scenes stuff after that initial viewing, I can always go back and see it a second time, watch some clips on YouTube, read up on some cool articles, or something else like that.
Conversely, the more likely I feel there is potential for in-depth critical analysis of a work, either in a literary or technical sense, the more I actually want to know the spoilers going in.
This is due to the kinds of things Scott talks about. When a piece of art is clearly so carefully constructed, so dense, so rich with stuff you could pick apart, then I feel like I'm being cheated out of half the experience of the work when I have to focus on just following the plot and the surface emotions first and foremost. The enjoyment of works like that for me is in seeing how everything connects to everything else -- how this early shot choice reflects that later story beat, or how this scene is ironic in relation to how that character develops, or how this piece of set dressing is symbolic of X about Y character.
I can do that kind of thinking while going in blind, but far less effectively because my attention is split between "analysis analysis analysis" and "What's going to happen next? Who is she? What's going on? Where are we again?" When I don't have to worry as much about the latter, I can totally get absorbed in doing the former and get a whole different kind of "Ohhhhh shit son!!" feeling upon discovering new layers of artistic construction -- layers I would've been less likely to see if I hadn't known the plot in advance. Sure, you could say that you can just watch the film/show again after seeing it fresh once and then get the same experience, but have you seen how much shit there is out there to watch? Ain't nobody got time to watch everything twice! Sometimes I have to make sure I get as much bang for my buck out of a single viewing as I can so I can move on to the next awesome thing.
TL;DR: I think both Luke and Scott have valid points on avoiding vs. not avoiding spoilers. You're both pretty, boys, you can stop fighting. :P
What he's never addressed is that his point doesn't apply to others. It's like he has no concept of other people's mind, and that other people can and like to experience emotions he doesn't. His dogmatic insistence that the only value in art is at the level of intellectual appreciation of technical skill is just very, very sad.
But I'll play your game anyway.
First off, you're narrowing your argument seemingly to only encompass those with sequential narratives where a story is told over a period of time, so I'll keep my examples to those mediums such as books, movies, etc. I assume that this means you agree that works of art outside of this category are unspoilable or better off spoiled. I'll just take that conquered ground and put it over to the side.
Now, if you had been paying attention, you would realize that my castle argument is actually so broad and encompassing that it handles all four of your points within it. I don't need to explain four different emotions being spoiled, because the fundamental principle is true for all emotions.
No matter what emotion it is, a good story will succeed in evoking that emotion from the audience every single time no matter what. If for some reason knowledge in the mind of the audience prevents desired emotions from being evoked, that is a flaw in the work itself, or actually in some cases a flaw in the audience.
Consider Alien. There is a surprise in the scene when it's not the Alien, it's the cat. If you've seen it enough, your body probably has each frame internally memorized. But, it surprises you every time, doesn't it? That's because it's well done. The lighting, framing, sound, and editing of that sequence is done in such a way that it evokes the surprised emotion from you even if you know it's the cat. This is the guided tour of the awesome castle.
Now consider a crappy surprise like a haunted house. If you go through it a second time, the surprises likely won't work at all. Cheap thrills are cheap. You should not be blaming your knowledge of the haunted house for ruining it. You should blame the haunted house for being shitty. If it was any good, it would work every time on every audience member without fail. The first time through the house is the fake castle. The second time through is the fake castle revealed as a fake. The fake castle isn't worth visiting even once, let alone twice.
Have you seen Rear Window? It has a shocking conclusion. I've seen it many times. Despite knowing every single thing about that movie, I can't help but be nervous every time Grace Kelly goes up that fire escape. Darth Vader's reveal also works every time just like Lando's Colt 45. High quality goods can not be spoiled. This is the guided tour of the awesome castle yet again.
For intelligence and stupidity, the same argument as still applies. If the writer of the story intends to make the audience feel stupid, smart, sexy, sad, angry, or any other emotion, then a good story will succeed in evoking those emotions every time.
But at least in the case of intelligence and stupidity, there's an extra point to make. Since the specific phenomena you are talking about isn't necessarily something a writer can always aim for no matter how skilled they are. Feeling stupid or intelligent are dependent upon the pride of the audience member and the target audience of the work.
You might figure out a children's movie, but you can't feel proud about that. A child might be stumped by a Sherlock Holmes tale, but they can't rightfully feel stupid about something so high above their level. You see, when this emotion is "spoiled" by knowledge, it's not actually the story that is spoiled. It is in fact that pride of the audience member that has been helped or harmed.
But again, a great work of art is one that is going to succeed not because it uses these pride-based emotions, but despite them. We just went to see Song of the Sea. It's a children's movie. Of course I figured everything out within the first few minutes. Children in the audience did not. But the movie still worked on everybody regardless of how much they knew. It would still work if I watched it again a second time, or a third time because it is great. If I was robbed of any pride I felt for figuring everything out as early as possible is on me.
TL;DR: for what I wish would be the last time, but almost definitely will not be.
Art that is good can not be spoiled. It will evoke the desired emotions from the audience without fail regardless of what knowledge they possess. Truly great works will only be enhanced, not diminished, when the audience is more well informed.
Crappy art can actually be spoiled. If it relies too heavily on cheap thrills and surprises, then those emotions will not hit an audience that has advance warning. These thrills are cheap because they suck. They are not worth your time. Don't blame the spoiler, blame the art for sucking.
Some emotions you feel when experience art come from within the audience, and are not something even the greatest works can attempt to evoke on any consistent basis. If those emotions are changed by information, that's a fault of the audience member. The work will still consistently succeed or fail at evoking the emotions it can on its own merits regardless of anything the audience is dealing with internally.
How do you measure any work unless seeing once without spoilers, and again knowing what you will see?
When I saw the building, it was a pretty incredible reaction I had (and not a positive one), the impact of which would have been dampened by knowing what I was going to see.
Then I looked around, read the information about it, Juliane told me all she knew, and then I carried on looking. I had the un-spoiled and the knowledgeable view, both within the same time it would have taken for just one. But this way there was a real process of discovery.
It is entirely possible to have strong reactions to things despite knowing in advance. Imagine being taken to a surprise party in your honor. Now imagine that the person taking you told you that they were taking you to a surprise party.
This seems to be the ultimate spoiler. Common sense would suggest that the entire thing is ruined, but common sense in this case is not necessarily correct. The knowledge that you are going to be surprised when you open the door is not equivalent to the actual experience of seeing what is behind the door. Seeing your friend's faces, seeing the decorations for yourself, the impact of these things can not be diminished by knowing that they are coming.
Even if someone were to describe so eloquently this entire experience in advance, this would actually result in experiencing it twice. You would experience it once in your imagination and then again in reality. This could be considered even better as you would experience this wonder not once, but twice. At worst, you have lost a cheap thrill of a jump scare upon opening the door. A cheap thrill that can be had in any crappy carnival ride or crappy "horror" video game is no great loss. It may even not be lost, as it would be very difficult to anticipate the exact timing of the surprise, and you may yet jump!
What can be known as a fact is that despite repeat experiences, some works continue to evoke emotions and some do not. Some things can be spoiled, and some can not.
If something can be spoiled, then it logically follows that it is not worth a repeat experience. If something is not worth a repeat experience, it is of low quality. If something is of low quality, then it is not worth a first experience either.
If something holds up upon repeat experiences, then it means that knowledge does not diminish the impact of that work. Therefore having knowledge prior to the first experience will not spoil anything.
Let's pretend that you are actually correct. What would also be true if spoilers were a real threat?
Consider a performance of a great work, Hamlet, performed by the world's greatest Shakespearean actors in the Globe Theatre. 200 people attend the performance. 50 don't know anything. 50 know the story. 50 not only know the story, but have seen it performed live before. 50 saw this exact same troupe perform the same play on the previous day.
If spoilers truly spoil things, then only 50 people will enjoy this performance. The remaining 150 people will enjoy it to a lesser degree, because it has been spoiled for them. Surely, you can see in the real world, this is not the case. If anything, evidence in the real world suggests that those with knowledge enjoy things much much more than those that do not. But if you ask people, they believe the opposite. Spoilers are a matter of faith, no different than god, or any other woo. Most people believe that foreknowledge will ruin experiences of art, despite all evidence strongly suggesting the exact opposite.
Well, I suppose he's not really going to do it now, so I'll just make the recommendation without the set-up - there's a book called How Pleasure Works by Paul Bloom, a psych professor at Yale. Interesting stuff, you should really read it. Same place you're hiding the perfectly rational robots that always react the same way to the same stimulus with which you populate all of your examples.
If I was going to critique something, I'd go and re-read or re-watch it, that's only natural, but I don't do that very often. Or educational stuff - obviously, if I'm trying to learn something, repetition is part of remembering it.
Edit - Okay, I'm being a little unfair, so I'll throw you a bone - I rarely care about spoilers in the traditional sense, because they don't bother me. I usually forget about them easily, and on the occasions I don't, it's usually broad enough that it's not really a give-away - after all, if someone says "Bleebloo eats a sponge", I don't know the significance of the sponge, what kind of sponge it is(sponge cake? Kitchen sponge? Sea Sponge? Metaphorical sponge? A character named Sponge?) when it happens, what the context is, possibly even who BleeBloo is, and certainly not why he's eating the sponge. If someone is describing something in great detail, that's different, but effectively nobody does that anyway, so it's a moot point. I do respect other people's wishes about spoilers, because that's just being polite, but I don't care about them myself.