"It's not that Scott doesn't have a point... a point that is applicable only to himself and his own disregard for experiencing the full range of emotions available to a human and as desired by the artist."
I'm talking about a full range of emotions. In that blog post I SPECIFICALLY say I like to feel proud of myself for working out a story, or guessing a twist, before it is revealed or without being spoiled. You say:
"It is in fact that pride of the audience member that has been helped or harmed."
You see pride as something worthless. I see it as something worth experiencing. Same with shock, surprise, feeling stupid, and many others.
I said:
" 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."
Again, nothing you've said has even remotely dissuaded me of this opinion. I tell real stories about real emotional experiences and you say things like:
"But you have no evidence to support your claim that knowledge in advance would have ruined that experience. You can not possibly claim to know how you would have felt under a given situation."
You're not arguing anything. All you are doing is denying that the emotions, or the heightening of emotions, that other people say they want to experience. That's it. Nothing else.
Technically SOME works of art I experiences MIGHT not be spoiled if I DID know everything about them in advance. But why should I deny myself the chance to experience something new or unexpected? Why deny myself the CHANCE to experience an emotion to a greater level?
You've not got an argument. All you do, over and over again, is give examples of how ideal robots should react, according to rules only in your head.
My point is that you do not know yourself. You believe that a spoiler is going to modify your emotions, when in fact it will not. Like a person who believes a food they have not ever tried will taste bad. What great story do you not enjoy specifically because you had been too well informed in advance?
Read my blog post. I list examples in both directions.
You listed Sixth Sense as the movie that was spoiled, but that's not a good movie. Does anyone really have any desire to watch it again? I watched it twice, and it does not hold up to repeat viewings. I wouldn't recommend anyone waste their time on it. Having someone explain it is preferable to wasting time watching it.
You see, you got the opportunity to discover that for yourself. I didn't. I'm sorry that I didn't because I couldn't experience the movie in the way that the writer and director wanted, and not the way I wanted. It diminished my life experience compared to the many, many, many people who were impacted by it (remember it was a huge hit movie and had wide cultural significance).
I am not arguing with you. You are not doing any favors to yourself by continually confirming my point that you don't have a concept of the minds or feelings or priorities of other people.
My initial post on this topic was me declaring my disappointment that you once again steered the topic of conversation in the podcast back onto this topic where you have, literally, nothing to add except repeating "What I have in my mind is more important than what other people may have in their minds." You are literally arguing that you know other people, and what they might enjoy, better than themselves. That's not any kind of argument, it's just, as I've said many times, pathetic. And sad. I find the way you say you experience art and emotions sad. Genuinely sad.
In my experience spoilers have no real effect, as long as I'm immersed. If the film is too predictable, or for whatever reason I'm just not engaged, then a spoiler doesn't really matter. Hard for me to recall a film being spoiled for me though.
Films I've liked, I have no recollection of being told anything about them since I usually watch films on a whim and not from being told about it. I am always conscious when somebody tells me about a film, because I do sense that having prior knowledge does spoil the experience. Like hearing the punchline to the joke, before you hear the setup.
I've always watched films quite virginally, not knowing anything. Films I haven't seen (usually) because I have a 6th sense that it might not be worth my time. Then when that film is recommended, the conversion alone reinforces my prejudices. Simply because I have them. So when I hear "oh you'll like this bit", I'm like "okay, we'll see".
..and I can say, that hasn't prevented me from enjoying something that was good. If it's good I will like it, because spoiler or not, the experience is will still be new to me. If it's good its good, if not it's not.
More than anything spoilery bits are the parts of the film that make the film most notable. Just having notable bits doesn't make an overall film experience great. If a movie is shit and I reach a spoilery part, having that part spoilt doesn't make the film any better/ worst. I'm already not enjoying the film.
With a good film, having something spoiled, if I'm enjoying the film, reaching the 'spoiled' part, it's like confirming or agreeing with someone. Which almost adds to the experience.
Be like "ahh shit, you were right that was awesome!"
First of all, demanding you be allowed to discover all of life on your own is nonsense. Did your teachers spoil you by teaching you math depriving you of the joy of discovering it on your own? Please.
And the only thing that's pathetic is your continued avoidance of attempting to address any of my actual points and instead dismissing them and instead attacking me as a person. If my logic is so crazy, you could at least attempt to poke a hole or two in it?
Anyway if, as you say, your life is diminished by spoilers somehow, then it is actually you who are the tragic figure, unable to extract joy from anything in life more than once, and only able to extract joy from things which you are completely ignorant of. To try to frame me, the one who is able to find joy from positions of both ignorance and knowledge, as the sad person with broken emotions is laughable. It is you, who is so stressed and downtrodden by knowledge that is deserving of pity.
It is not spoilers to blame for any diminished pleasure you have, or believe to have, suffered. The culprit is your own attitude. When you are spoiled, you imagine some alternate universe where you had extreme pleasure due to not being spoiled. This alternate universe, of course, does not exist. What does exist is the extreme disappointment you feel in the real universe because you believe yourself to have been cheated out of this imaginary universe. You place blame for this disappointment on external forces (the fiends who spoiled it!) when the blame only lies within yourself.
Your insistence on experiencing things in a very specifically crafted way is actually the source of your trouble. As a human being, you have almost no control over most of how you experience life in general. Even if you lived in a sealed chamber, you would have had to manually control all sensory inputs up until the point of experiencing the work.
Expecting to have such control, and being upset when you fail, is only a source of unnecessary stress. Because you care about spoilers so so much, you put all sorts of effort into avoiding them. When you fail, it hurts even more because all the effort you put in was for naught. These negative feelings and efforts put into avoiding spoilers far outweigh any possible diminished joy that could ever possibly be brought on by the act of spoiling itself. If you just stop being upset by perceived spoilage, it would balance out into a humongous positive emotionally, even if spoilers truly spoiled things in the way you claim.
Instead of trying to avoid spoilers, just appreciate the unique experience you have with everything as your own. Don't try to craft or control it. Just live it. You may not have experience some movie in the way you imagined being perfect, but you experienced it in your own way. Hearing people whisper what's going to happen in the theater is the experience you had, and you discovered what that was like. It's only a negative experience because the movie wasn't good and because you decided to believe you missed out on some superior alternative.
Anyway if, as you say, your life is diminished by spoilers somehow, then it is actually you who are the tragic figure, unable to extract joy from anything in life more than once, and only able to extract joy from things which you are completely ignorant of. To try to frame me, the one who is able to find joy from positions of both ignorance and knowledge, as the sad person with broken emotions is laughable. It is you, who is so stressed and downtrodden by knowledge that is deserving of pity.
What are you even talking about?
Even when things are spoiled for me, I find ways to enjoy them. I've never said any different. It's a different kind of enjoyment, and not what I would prefer on my first experience of the work of art, but if the movie is good, I'll still appreciate it.
Who said I have suffered? I've never said that.
When have I ever said I only experience something once? Never. Never said that. I love watching movies for the second time, and reading novels for the second time. Probably half the movies and books I've read this past year were second watches/reads.
Who said I want to experience things in very specific ways? Not me.
Who said I've had negative feelings towards anything? Not me.
Who said I have trouble with experiencing things? Not me.
YOU are saying what is going on in my head. You are proclaiming what I should do and how I should feel, and how I should live my life. I'm not saying that about you, but you are saying that about literally everyone in the world in relation to every piece of artwork it is possible to experience.
I am talking about allowing myself to have more powerful experiences than otherwise. I'm talking about having more positive and enjoyable experiences than otherwise. I'm talking about allowing myself to experience a wider range of emotions than otherwise. That is it. You keep saying that those are invalid, or that I shouldn't treasure those moments, or that they aren't worth experiencing because they aren't about technical appreciation.
I understand how YOU want to experience art, and while I think it's sad, you seem happy with it. That's fine. Good on you. But you don't win an argument by pronouncing that you know better than me what is going on in my head, and declaring yourself the winner when you feel like it.
I am talking about allowing myself to have more powerful experiences than otherwise. I'm talking about having more positive and enjoyable experiences than otherwise. I'm talking about allowing myself to experience a wider range of emotions than otherwise. That is it. You keep saying that those are invalid, or that I shouldn't treasure those moments, or that they aren't worth experiencing because they aren't about technical appreciation.
This is exactly the part that's wrong. That more powerful experience you think you are missing out on doesn't exist. You only believe you are missing out on something if you get spoiled, but you aren't.
I am talking about allowing myself to have more powerful experiences than otherwise. I'm talking about having more positive and enjoyable experiences than otherwise. I'm talking about allowing myself to experience a wider range of emotions than otherwise. That is it. You keep saying that those are invalid, or that I shouldn't treasure those moments, or that they aren't worth experiencing because they aren't about technical appreciation.
This is exactly the part that's wrong. That more powerful experience you think you are missing out on doesn't exist. You only believe you are missing out on something if you get spoiled, but you aren't.
Right. That is your argument that makes sense to you in your head. Good on you.
Meanwhile, from now on, record all live sport, have someone tell you when each team will score and when, then watch the match later. See if you have a different experience than you are used to. Tell me there is no difference. Go on. I dare you.
I am talking about allowing myself to have more powerful experiences than otherwise. I'm talking about having more positive and enjoyable experiences than otherwise. I'm talking about allowing myself to experience a wider range of emotions than otherwise. That is it. You keep saying that those are invalid, or that I shouldn't treasure those moments, or that they aren't worth experiencing because they aren't about technical appreciation.
This is exactly the part that's wrong. That more powerful experience you think you are missing out on doesn't exist. You only believe you are missing out on something if you get spoiled, but you aren't.
Right. That is your argument that makes sense to you in your head. Good on you.
Meanwhile, from now on, record all live sport, have someone tell you when each team will score and when, then watch the match later. See if you have a different experience than you are used to. Tell me there is no difference. Go on. I dare you.
No difference. I watched the Giants win the Super Bowl multiple times. Thrilling every time. I've watched a lot of old F1 races and boxing fights on YouTube. Says right in the title who's going to win, if you don't already know. Still a glory to behold. A good game is rewatchable. A bad game isn't.
The term "xenomorph" was supposed to be another throw away descriptor like "bug" or "insect" by the marines in Aliens. However silly fans made the word a proper noun for the species.
I am talking about allowing myself to have more powerful experiences than otherwise. I'm talking about having more positive and enjoyable experiences than otherwise. I'm talking about allowing myself to experience a wider range of emotions than otherwise. That is it. You keep saying that those are invalid, or that I shouldn't treasure those moments, or that they aren't worth experiencing because they aren't about technical appreciation.
This is exactly the part that's wrong. That more powerful experience you think you are missing out on doesn't exist. You only believe you are missing out on something if you get spoiled, but you aren't.
Right. That is your argument that makes sense to you in your head. Good on you.
Meanwhile, from now on, record all live sport, have someone tell you when each team will score and when, then watch the match later. See if you have a different experience than you are used to. Tell me there is no difference. Go on. I dare you.
No difference... A good game is rewatchable. A bad game isn't.
Wow. Now I really understand that this is all happening in your head. Only in your head.
Scott, let me leave it with this: other people have different brains than you. Really. You can't generalize your experience to everyone else alive and then say you are right because you think the way you want everyone else to.
If a work of art doesn't stand the test of time, how good is it really? Every single great work is good over and over again for years and years.
I think "stand the test of time" and replayability aren't necessarily the same. Is Triumph of the Will a good artwork? Are you rewatching it all the time?
I think there's something to be said for the one-time experience. Like, not everything you experience can be a masterpiece. Yeah, some times thrills are cheap. But if you experienced them in the moment, you still experienced them and that experience was valid, even if they were done in a way that doesn't hold up when you do it again.
I get where Scott is coming from in that he thinks that spoilers for things like that ought not matter. I disagree in that some people do enjoy the experience of being got, and that preference is valid. Like, the Sixth Sense isn't a good movie, but it is a good twist, if you don't know it's coming. Working it out or having it revealed are two valid experiences you can't have if somebody tells you Bruce Willis was totes dead the whole time, and many people enjoyed those experiences. You can't fault people for what they enjoy, unless it's moe bullshit. There's a reason people remember it, even if the fact it has stuck in people's minds has revealed the flaws of that movie.
I also generally have a desire to come to my own conclusions on media. Like, if somebody describes a character while spoiling a work to you and calls them a jerk, when you arrive at that character, you'll go "hey it's the jerk!" without necessarily forming the conclusion yourself as to the character's jerkness. You've been primed to think of them as the jerk because you are looking for their jerk tendencies to define them. This can be detrimental to a work.
I also generally have a desire to come to my own conclusions on media. Like, if somebody describes a character while spoiling a work to you and calls them a jerk, when you arrive at that character, you'll go "hey it's the jerk!" without necessarily forming the conclusion yourself as to the character's jerkness. You've been primed to think of them as the jerk because you are looking for their jerk tendencies to define them. This can be detrimental to a work.
This is exactly what the conversation on Terminator 2 was about. If you didn't know Arnie was the good guy going in, and you only knew him from the first movie, you'd have a different experience.
If a work of art doesn't stand the test of time, how good is it really? Every single great work is good over and over again for years and years.
I think "stand the test of time" and replayability aren't necessarily the same. Is Triumph of the Will a good artwork? Are you rewatching it all the time?
This is correct. Whether something holds up to repeat viewing and whether you desire repeat viewing are completely separate. Citizen Kane holds up to repeat viewings, but most people don't have a desire for a repeat viewing. Star Wars also holds up to repeat viewings, but most people tend to actually want those repeat viewings. The holding up part is the one I'm talking about. The desire to repeat mostly has to do with personal taste. Beatles music still holds up after all these decades, but not everyone wants to listen to it.
You're arguing against your own best point here. If a work of art really is "so carefully constructed, so dense, so rich with stuff you could pick apart", isn't it worth watching it twice?
Oops, forgot to come back to this thread. ;; Anyway: I don't think it does contradict the point. The key part of the point is not "I don't think these movies are worth a second viewing" -- the key part is "ain't nobody got time".
A movie that dense and rich is totally worth watching twice, three times, heck, any number of times. I would love to be able to do that with all movies of that calibre. Trust me: I am a consummate re-watcher. I love to re-watch great movies, be they high art or low. But do you know how many movies of that rich artistic calibre there are? Even after the application of Sturgeon's law, there are more amazing movies in the world than a single person can watch in their lifetime -- let alone watch twice or more -- and there are more being made all the time, much as the Hollywood release slate for 2015 suggests otherwise. There is literally, physically not enough time. So if you're like me and you want to experience as many great titles as you possibly can (while still making time for stuff that isn't 100% great but is up your personal alley) there are inevitably going to be a good number of all-time classics and soon-to-be classics that you're only going to be able to watch once. The problem is especially pronounced for me because I'm in Film Studies and up to now I've been required to watch at least two or three masterpieces a week throughout semesters in addition to stuff I watch on my own time. I can't go back to everything, but I also don't want to miss out on huge chunks of the subtle touches in those movies just because I can't go back to everything. So in my case, the practical thing to do is to read up on the plot summary beforehand and then have the basic skeleton story in my head to build a deeper on-the-go analysis around as I watch. That process of analysis is intensely enjoyable and rewarding to me, and so I don't mind losing a bit of emotional impact here and there in the cases where there is loads of analysis to be had.
That all said, I totally get that not everyone wants that kind of experience out of their art movies, or any movies. I'm not going to be like Scott and obstinately insist that my way of watching art movies is inherently superior and must be engaged in by everyone or else they be found guilty in the Court of Taste or whatever. My only point is that I can see where Scott's points are coming from (and I see that you acknowledged that he does have some points putting aside from the weird empathy issues, so we agree there), and that spoilers can be either boon or burden depending on what you want/expect out of a given movie.
EDIT: Oh, and as for that whole big back-and-forth about whether spoilability correlates with quality? Gonna leave that can o' worms alone for now. You guys have fun.
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.
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.
This implies that approaching something thoughtfully and academically is somehow the antithesis of enjoyment. The idea that enjoyment only exists, or is enhanced when it comes from, a position of ignorance is the core tenet of anti-intellectualism.
Somehow I don't think you really want to argue that the smarter and more intellectual someone is, the less they are harmed by spoilers. Nor do I think you want to argue that ignorance is bliss, and there is somehow virtue in striving for ignorance to achieve bliss.
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.
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?
Comments
"It's not that Scott doesn't have a point... a point that is applicable only to himself and his own disregard for experiencing the full range of emotions available to a human and as desired by the artist."
I'm talking about a full range of emotions. In that blog post I SPECIFICALLY say I like to feel proud of myself for working out a story, or guessing a twist, before it is revealed or without being spoiled. You say:
"It is in fact that pride of the audience member that has been helped or harmed."
You see pride as something worthless. I see it as something worth experiencing. Same with shock, surprise, feeling stupid, and many others.
I said:
" 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."
Again, nothing you've said has even remotely dissuaded me of this opinion. I tell real stories about real emotional experiences and you say things like:
"But you have no evidence to support your claim that knowledge in advance would have ruined that experience. You can not possibly claim to know how you would have felt under a given situation."
You're not arguing anything. All you are doing is denying that the emotions, or the heightening of emotions, that other people say they want to experience. That's it. Nothing else.
Technically SOME works of art I experiences MIGHT not be spoiled if I DID know everything about them in advance. But why should I deny myself the chance to experience something new or unexpected? Why deny myself the CHANCE to experience an emotion to a greater level?
You've not got an argument. All you do, over and over again, is give examples of how ideal robots should react, according to rules only in your head.
I am not arguing with you. You are not doing any favors to yourself by continually confirming my point that you don't have a concept of the minds or feelings or priorities of other people.
My initial post on this topic was me declaring my disappointment that you once again steered the topic of conversation in the podcast back onto this topic where you have, literally, nothing to add except repeating "What I have in my mind is more important than what other people may have in their minds." You are literally arguing that you know other people, and what they might enjoy, better than themselves. That's not any kind of argument, it's just, as I've said many times, pathetic. And sad. I find the way you say you experience art and emotions sad. Genuinely sad.
Films I've liked, I have no recollection of being told anything about them since I usually watch films on a whim and not from being told about it. I am always conscious when somebody tells me about a film, because I do sense that having prior knowledge does spoil the experience. Like hearing the punchline to the joke, before you hear the setup.
I've always watched films quite virginally, not knowing anything. Films I haven't seen (usually) because I have a 6th sense that it might not be worth my time. Then when that film is recommended, the conversion alone reinforces my prejudices. Simply because I have them. So when I hear "oh you'll like this bit", I'm like "okay, we'll see".
..and I can say, that hasn't prevented me from enjoying something that was good. If it's good I will like it, because spoiler or not, the experience is will still be new to me. If it's good its good, if not it's not.
More than anything spoilery bits are the parts of the film that make the film most notable. Just having notable bits doesn't make an overall film experience great. If a movie is shit and I reach a spoilery part, having that part spoilt doesn't make the film any better/ worst. I'm already not enjoying the film.
With a good film, having something spoiled, if I'm enjoying the film, reaching the 'spoiled' part, it's like confirming or agreeing with someone. Which almost adds to the experience.
Be like "ahh shit, you were right that was awesome!"
And the only thing that's pathetic is your continued avoidance of attempting to address any of my actual points and instead dismissing them and instead attacking me as a person. If my logic is so crazy, you could at least attempt to poke a hole or two in it?
Anyway if, as you say, your life is diminished by spoilers somehow, then it is actually you who are the tragic figure, unable to extract joy from anything in life more than once, and only able to extract joy from things which you are completely ignorant of. To try to frame me, the one who is able to find joy from positions of both ignorance and knowledge, as the sad person with broken emotions is laughable. It is you, who is so stressed and downtrodden by knowledge that is deserving of pity.
It is not spoilers to blame for any diminished pleasure you have, or believe to have, suffered. The culprit is your own attitude. When you are spoiled, you imagine some alternate universe where you had extreme pleasure due to not being spoiled. This alternate universe, of course, does not exist. What does exist is the extreme disappointment you feel in the real universe because you believe yourself to have been cheated out of this imaginary universe. You place blame for this disappointment on external forces (the fiends who spoiled it!) when the blame only lies within yourself.
Your insistence on experiencing things in a very specifically crafted way is actually the source of your trouble. As a human being, you have almost no control over most of how you experience life in general. Even if you lived in a sealed chamber, you would have had to manually control all sensory inputs up until the point of experiencing the work.
Expecting to have such control, and being upset when you fail, is only a source of unnecessary stress. Because you care about spoilers so so much, you put all sorts of effort into avoiding them. When you fail, it hurts even more because all the effort you put in was for naught. These negative feelings and efforts put into avoiding spoilers far outweigh any possible diminished joy that could ever possibly be brought on by the act of spoiling itself. If you just stop being upset by perceived spoilage, it would balance out into a humongous positive emotionally, even if spoilers truly spoiled things in the way you claim.
Instead of trying to avoid spoilers, just appreciate the unique experience you have with everything as your own. Don't try to craft or control it. Just live it. You may not have experience some movie in the way you imagined being perfect, but you experienced it in your own way. Hearing people whisper what's going to happen in the theater is the experience you had, and you discovered what that was like. It's only a negative experience because the movie wasn't good and because you decided to believe you missed out on some superior alternative.
Even when things are spoiled for me, I find ways to enjoy them. I've never said any different. It's a different kind of enjoyment, and not what I would prefer on my first experience of the work of art, but if the movie is good, I'll still appreciate it.
Who said I have suffered? I've never said that.
When have I ever said I only experience something once? Never. Never said that. I love watching movies for the second time, and reading novels for the second time. Probably half the movies and books I've read this past year were second watches/reads.
Who said I want to experience things in very specific ways? Not me.
Who said I've had negative feelings towards anything? Not me.
Who said I have trouble with experiencing things? Not me.
YOU are saying what is going on in my head. You are proclaiming what I should do and how I should feel, and how I should live my life. I'm not saying that about you, but you are saying that about literally everyone in the world in relation to every piece of artwork it is possible to experience.
I am talking about allowing myself to have more powerful experiences than otherwise. I'm talking about having more positive and enjoyable experiences than otherwise. I'm talking about allowing myself to experience a wider range of emotions than otherwise. That is it. You keep saying that those are invalid, or that I shouldn't treasure those moments, or that they aren't worth experiencing because they aren't about technical appreciation.
I understand how YOU want to experience art, and while I think it's sad, you seem happy with it. That's fine. Good on you. But you don't win an argument by pronouncing that you know better than me what is going on in my head, and declaring yourself the winner when you feel like it.
Meanwhile, from now on, record all live sport, have someone tell you when each team will score and when, then watch the match later. See if you have a different experience than you are used to. Tell me there is no difference. Go on. I dare you.
I actually feel similar to Rubin about spoilers personally but totally agree with Luke's argument.
I just enjoy feeling dread instead of shock when I know what's about to happen (Like who is going to die in Game of Thrones since I read the books).
But really watch Alien.
Scott, let me leave it with this: other people have different brains than you. Really. You can't generalize your experience to everyone else alive and then say you are right because you think the way you want everyone else to.
I get where Scott is coming from in that he thinks that spoilers for things like that ought not matter. I disagree in that some people do enjoy the experience of being got, and that preference is valid. Like, the Sixth Sense isn't a good movie, but it is a good twist, if you don't know it's coming. Working it out or having it revealed are two valid experiences you can't have if somebody tells you Bruce Willis was totes dead the whole time, and many people enjoyed those experiences. You can't fault people for what they enjoy, unless it's moe bullshit. There's a reason people remember it, even if the fact it has stuck in people's minds has revealed the flaws of that movie.
I also generally have a desire to come to my own conclusions on media. Like, if somebody describes a character while spoiling a work to you and calls them a jerk, when you arrive at that character, you'll go "hey it's the jerk!" without necessarily forming the conclusion yourself as to the character's jerkness. You've been primed to think of them as the jerk because you are looking for their jerk tendencies to define them. This can be detrimental to a work.
A movie that dense and rich is totally worth watching twice, three times, heck, any number of times. I would love to be able to do that with all movies of that calibre. Trust me: I am a consummate re-watcher. I love to re-watch great movies, be they high art or low. But do you know how many movies of that rich artistic calibre there are? Even after the application of Sturgeon's law, there are more amazing movies in the world than a single person can watch in their lifetime -- let alone watch twice or more -- and there are more being made all the time, much as the Hollywood release slate for 2015 suggests otherwise. There is literally, physically not enough time. So if you're like me and you want to experience as many great titles as you possibly can (while still making time for stuff that isn't 100% great but is up your personal alley) there are inevitably going to be a good number of all-time classics and soon-to-be classics that you're only going to be able to watch once. The problem is especially pronounced for me because I'm in Film Studies and up to now I've been required to watch at least two or three masterpieces a week throughout semesters in addition to stuff I watch on my own time. I can't go back to everything, but I also don't want to miss out on huge chunks of the subtle touches in those movies just because I can't go back to everything. So in my case, the practical thing to do is to read up on the plot summary beforehand and then have the basic skeleton story in my head to build a deeper on-the-go analysis around as I watch. That process of analysis is intensely enjoyable and rewarding to me, and so I don't mind losing a bit of emotional impact here and there in the cases where there is loads of analysis to be had.
That all said, I totally get that not everyone wants that kind of experience out of their art movies, or any movies. I'm not going to be like Scott and obstinately insist that my way of watching art movies is inherently superior and must be engaged in by everyone or else they be found guilty in the Court of Taste or whatever. My only point is that I can see where Scott's points are coming from (and I see that you acknowledged that he does have some points putting aside from the weird empathy issues, so we agree there), and that spoilers can be either boon or burden depending on what you want/expect out of a given movie.
EDIT: Oh, and as for that whole big back-and-forth about whether spoilability correlates with quality? Gonna leave that can o' worms alone for now. You guys have fun.
Somehow I don't think you really want to argue that the smarter and more intellectual someone is, the less they are harmed by spoilers. Nor do I think you want to argue that ignorance is bliss, and there is somehow virtue in striving for ignorance to achieve bliss.
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.
How many times am I meant to have watched it?