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?
Get a clue.
As I said before, the same logic that applies to the whole applies to the part. Films in particular are very large works with many separate components. There are many movies that are fantastic and rewatchable, but few if any are perfect.
A movie may be great enough to warrant watching again and again, but some scenes fall flat on repeat viewings. Those scenes are simply poorly crafted. If the entire rest of the movie is able to deliver the same impact despite whatever knowledge the audience has, then the part that can not do so is a flaw in an otherwise fine work. If it was well crafted, it would be able to give you that experience you are looking for no matter what you know.
Great way to miss the point entirely. You're literally ignoring the main point I made in that post.
Why do you keep bringing up watching movies a second time? Why do you keep bringing up re-watching great movies over and over? Why do you keep bringing up longevity or classic movies? Why do you bring up poorly crafted movies or scenes? Why do you keep bringing up quality in any way?
I've never said anything about re-watching movies, except maybe to say that I love re-watching movies. All these things you keep bringing up are not part of any argument I've ever made, and have nothing to do with the argument I made in my previous post.
Are you really sure you're not just trolling everyone?
Great way to miss the point entirely. You're literally ignoring the main point I made in that post.
Why do you keep bringing up watching movies a second time? Why do you keep bringing up re-watching great movies over and over? Why do you keep bringing up longevity or classic movies? Why do you bring up poorly crafted movies or scenes? Why do you keep bringing up quality in any way?
I've never said anything about re-watching movies, except maybe to say that I love re-watching movies. All these things you keep bringing up are not part of any argument I've ever made, and have nothing to do with the argument I made in my previous post.
Are you really sure you're not just trolling everyone?
Because watching something a second time is even more of a spoiler than just being told some information and watching a movie the first time. If having watched the movie already can not spoil the experience of watching it again, then it logically follows that the mere act of reading some text definitely can not spoil watching a movie for the first time.
This is what I find so sad. You honestly think that someone is incapable of having a different reaction when watching something for the first time, for the second time, for the tenth time, or for the hundredth time.
You are wrong. I have different experiences when watching a movie/reading a book/listening to a song for the first time compared to the second time.
I REALLY like the experience of watching/reading/seeing/listening to something for the second time. I like it BECAUSE it is a different experience than watching/reading/seeing/listening to something for the first time.
I REALLY like the experience of watching/reading/seeing/listening to something for the third time. I like it BECAUSE it is a different experience than watching/reading/seeing/listening to something for the first or second time.
I REALLY like the experience of watching/reading/seeing/listening to something for the FIRST time. I like it BECAUSE it is a different experience than watching/reading/seeing/listening to something for the second time.
This is irrespective of QUALITY. It irrespective of if the movie is a classic, can stand the test of time, etc. All the other points you bring up that having nothing to do with my main point. The REASON I have different experiences is due to the varying knowledge I have of the work of art in question.
Nothing you ever bring up counters this very, very, very basic point.
On my podcast, for the second time I read Solaris, Juliane and I also watched two different movie version, listened to the BBC audio adaptation, listened to the audiobook, read a paper book, and compared three different translations.
When we reviewed Ender's Game, we talked about the book (also in translation), the movie, the audiobook, the audio adaptation and the retelling of the same story from the same author, Ender's Shadow.
When we reviewed Dune, we talked about the original book, the audiobook, the movie, and the board game.
It's not as if I don't enjoy seeing something twice. It's what I do! But seeing something twice has nothing to do with spoilers. A spoiler has to do with what you know before you experience a work of art in either the way the creator intended, or the way you know, from long experience, maximizes your own enjoyment.
Again, just so you understand: Watching something twice has nothing to do with spoilers relating to the first time you watch it.
Scott seems to be obsessed with this idea that surprises of any kind are somehow "cheap." You should have seen how hard he was not having fun and pulling everyone else down when I was demonstrating Five Nights at Freddy's at a party. "That's just cheap jump scares! It's not actually scary! It's stupid!"
Yeah man, when my dad died suddenly and unexpectedly 10 years ago, all I could think was "C'mon universe, couldn't you give me more compelling content?"
I think this is what you are not understanding. I never said it wouldn't be different. Every single experience had by every single person is different every single time. Everything that happens in your life before the present has an effect on how you feel in the present. We have no disagreement there.
I'm also not denying that experiences can be diminished by outside factors, including spoilers. You might be sick, hungry, or tired when you go see a movie. And yes, you might already know about a surprise, and that surprise will fall flat.
What I am saying is that if a surprise, or any other aspect of a work of art, falls flat simply due to knowledge possessed by the audience, that that knowledge is not at fault. Someone who spread that knowledge is not at fault. Avoiding that knowledge is not worth the effort. That is all because the fault lies in the work itself.
A great work will still be able to deliver that incredible first-time experience every single time, no matter how much it has been supposedly spoiled. If a spoiler does spoil a work, or aspect thereof, then it's simply a case that a flaw in that work being exposed. It wasn't good to begin with, so no biggie that it got spoiled.
Philosophically speaking you are taking the stance that your emotional responses to stimuli are set in stone. You put the blame for negative responses on the stimuli themselves, and the purveyors of those stimuli. Thus, you seek to exert control over all other things in the world, including other people's actions as a means to controlling your emotional responses.
Even if you try, success is simply impossible. Thanks to the Internet, even partially succeeding requires an enormous effort, and it will induce a vast amount of stress. It is nowhere near even close to being worth the extremely minor reward.
What is very easy to do, and what you have complete control over, is your own beliefs. If you simply stop believing in spoilers, their effects will weaken and/or vanish. If you do not believe you are going to be, or have been, robbed of some great experience thanks to learning some information, then you will no longer feel such great disappointment when it happens. Perhaps you'll even still be surprised at something, even if you saw it coming a few miles away.
I'm not sure where you're getting the characterization of "great" experiences and such via spoilers. People who complain about spoilers are complaining about being deprived of a particular enjoyable experience, but not necessarily complaining that the work itself is now lessened.
Of course you can still extract enjoyment when you're fully informed - it's a different enjoyment from a different experience.
Your argument contains an unsupported value assessment of the different experiences. How can you consider one to be more valid than another? It's an apples and oranges problems - people are trying to extract different kinds of experiences from the same viewing.
Sure, some people make too big a deal out of being spoiled - but it's sort of like the disappointment that arises when you drop the last bite of a piece of food you were really enjoying. It doesn't invalidate the experience, nor does it make any of what you just ate taste any worse - but you know you were deprived of the full possible experience through circumstances beyond your control, and that's fucking lame.
The fundamental thing I think I'm missing in this argument is why it has to be one way or another - multiple viewings of the same piece of art give us different information because each happens in a different specific context. The most complete experience is given by multiple instances of consumption and digestion. This is not hard.
Consuming a work unspoiled and spoiled are two totally different and equally valid experiences that yield different information. Neither is a complete experience.
I do agree that if a works interest hinges purely on a surprise that doesn't need to be experience then it's probably not that amazing to begin with. Because once you know the surprise, whether hearing it from someone or experiencing it yourself, the work become unusable any subsequent uses.
There is a lot of talk about the "cheapness" of surprise, but I submit that it's not the actual fault of surprise as a mechanic.
Puns are essentially the antithesis of surprise. They're all about elaborate setup to deliver a line that becomes obvious before it's actually spoken. The goal is to take the entire audience along your thought process, through the twists and turns of your brain, and arrive at the same point. A well-crafted pun elicits groans because everyone saw it coming and nobody tried to stop it.
Yet a pun is easily as "cheap" as a jump scare. Low-hanging fruit in either case. Actually, I look down on puns much more than cheap scares, but that's a matter of personal preference.
The point is that both of these mechanics - the surprise and the obvious endpoint - have their root in audience manipulation, and the reason they work is because the audience wants to be manipulated.
You might be sick, hungry, or tired when you go see a movie.
Yeah, and I try to diminish the time I spend sick, hungry and tired, so I can maximize how much I enjoy a movie. You know, like I try to diminish how much I know about a movie so I can maximize how much I enjoy a movie? Yeah, it's exactly like that.
Philosophically speaking you are taking the stance that your emotional responses to stimuli are set in stone. You put the blame for negative responses on the stimuli themselves, and the purveyors of those stimuli. Thus, you seek to exert control over all other things in the world, including other people's actions as a means to controlling your emotional responses.
What the flying utter fuck are you talking about? What? Where can you even read this into anything I have ever written?
Even if you try, success is simply impossible. Thanks to the Internet, even partially succeeding requires an enormous effort, and it will induce a vast amount of stress. It is nowhere near even close to being worth the extremely minor reward.
Whaaaaat? What stress is there ever what the fuck? Who are you arguing with? What the what the what now? Is anything ever not entirely inside your own brain world here outside not your brain real what the fucking how what my own brain how world melt what?
Scott seems to be obsessed with this idea that surprises of any kind are somehow "cheap." You should have seen how hard he was not having fun and pulling everyone else down when I was demonstrating Five Nights at Freddy's at a party. "That's just cheap jump scares! It's not actually scary! It's stupid!"
Surprise is cheap. Any carnival fun house is full of nothing but surprise. It's trivial to execute, and in abundance. Even a small child can jump out from behind a corner and go "BOO!" It's the exact opposite of high brow. You won't be fooled a second time, and you won't regret it if you never got fooled in the first place. A quality surprise will get you every single time. Kind of like the difference between Hershey's chocolate and the good stuff.
What are you defining as "surprise?" A surprise is just an outcome that defies expectations to that point. The only other option is a completely expected outcome.
Are you saying the only compelling media are those whose outcomes are wholly predictable?
What are you defining as "surprise?" A surprise is just an outcome that defies expectations to that point. The only other option is a completely expected outcome.
Are you saying the only compelling media are those whose outcomes are wholly predictable?
No. I'm saying that compelling media will be compelling regardless of whether it is expected or not.
What are you defining as "surprise?" A surprise is just an outcome that defies expectations to that point. The only other option is a completely expected outcome.
Are you saying the only compelling media are those whose outcomes are wholly predictable?
No. I'm saying that compelling media will be compelling regardless of whether it is expected or not.
But you just said "surprise is cheap." You called it the opposite of high-brow.
So then you must believe that there are compelling surprises and cheap surprises? Because otherwise your argument is ludicrously self-contradictory.
What are you defining as "surprise?" A surprise is just an outcome that defies expectations to that point. The only other option is a completely expected outcome.
Are you saying the only compelling media are those whose outcomes are wholly predictable?
No. I'm saying that compelling media will be compelling regardless of whether it is expected or not.
But you just said "surprise is cheap." You called it the opposite of high-brow.
So then you must believe that there are compelling surprises and cheap surprises? Because otherwise your argument is ludicrously self-contradictory.
As an example (probably a bad one for this audience ) on the last Bombcast someone was about to say something about the end of MGS4. Even though they didn't Dan said to Drew "Don't worry, even if someone explained to you what happened at the end it couldn't spoil it for you". Sure, maybe the full impact may be lost if someone is expecting a certain outcome, but for another person that might not be very compelling anyway. So you can't rely on some sudden revelation to delight the participant as the sole mechanic. It's about the journey there, and experiencing the unraveling of the events that lead to a "surprise" that is the more rewarding experience.
You can tell when Dan is watching Drew play, even though he knows what is coming, he's still excited to see it happen. If the entire payoff is some revelation, then once you have that information the rest is irrelevant and always will be.
Comments
A movie may be great enough to warrant watching again and again, but some scenes fall flat on repeat viewings. Those scenes are simply poorly crafted. If the entire rest of the movie is able to deliver the same impact despite whatever knowledge the audience has, then the part that can not do so is a flaw in an otherwise fine work. If it was well crafted, it would be able to give you that experience you are looking for no matter what you know.
Why do you keep bringing up watching movies a second time? Why do you keep bringing up re-watching great movies over and over? Why do you keep bringing up longevity or classic movies? Why do you bring up poorly crafted movies or scenes? Why do you keep bringing up quality in any way?
I've never said anything about re-watching movies, except maybe to say that I love re-watching movies. All these things you keep bringing up are not part of any argument I've ever made, and have nothing to do with the argument I made in my previous post.
Are you really sure you're not just trolling everyone?
You are wrong. I have different experiences when watching a movie/reading a book/listening to a song for the first time compared to the second time.
I REALLY like the experience of watching/reading/seeing/listening to something for the second time. I like it BECAUSE it is a different experience than watching/reading/seeing/listening to something for the first time.
I REALLY like the experience of watching/reading/seeing/listening to something for the third time. I like it BECAUSE it is a different experience than watching/reading/seeing/listening to something for the first or second time.
I REALLY like the experience of watching/reading/seeing/listening to something for the FIRST time. I like it BECAUSE it is a different experience than watching/reading/seeing/listening to something for the second time.
This is irrespective of QUALITY. It irrespective of if the movie is a classic, can stand the test of time, etc. All the other points you bring up that having nothing to do with my main point. The REASON I have different experiences is due to the varying knowledge I have of the work of art in question.
Nothing you ever bring up counters this very, very, very basic point.
On my podcast, for the second time I read Solaris, Juliane and I also watched two different movie version, listened to the BBC audio adaptation, listened to the audiobook, read a paper book, and compared three different translations.
When we reviewed Ender's Game, we talked about the book (also in translation), the movie, the audiobook, the audio adaptation and the retelling of the same story from the same author, Ender's Shadow.
When we reviewed Dune, we talked about the original book, the audiobook, the movie, and the board game.
It's not as if I don't enjoy seeing something twice. It's what I do! But seeing something twice has nothing to do with spoilers. A spoiler has to do with what you know before you experience a work of art in either the way the creator intended, or the way you know, from long experience, maximizes your own enjoyment.
Again, just so you understand: Watching something twice has nothing to do with spoilers relating to the first time you watch it.
Only in your own head does that not hold true.
I'm also not denying that experiences can be diminished by outside factors, including spoilers. You might be sick, hungry, or tired when you go see a movie. And yes, you might already know about a surprise, and that surprise will fall flat.
What I am saying is that if a surprise, or any other aspect of a work of art, falls flat simply due to knowledge possessed by the audience, that that knowledge is not at fault. Someone who spread that knowledge is not at fault. Avoiding that knowledge is not worth the effort. That is all because the fault lies in the work itself.
A great work will still be able to deliver that incredible first-time experience every single time, no matter how much it has been supposedly spoiled. If a spoiler does spoil a work, or aspect thereof, then it's simply a case that a flaw in that work being exposed. It wasn't good to begin with, so no biggie that it got spoiled.
Philosophically speaking you are taking the stance that your emotional responses to stimuli are set in stone. You put the blame for negative responses on the stimuli themselves, and the purveyors of those stimuli. Thus, you seek to exert control over all other things in the world, including other people's actions as a means to controlling your emotional responses.
Even if you try, success is simply impossible. Thanks to the Internet, even partially succeeding requires an enormous effort, and it will induce a vast amount of stress. It is nowhere near even close to being worth the extremely minor reward.
What is very easy to do, and what you have complete control over, is your own beliefs. If you simply stop believing in spoilers, their effects will weaken and/or vanish. If you do not believe you are going to be, or have been, robbed of some great experience thanks to learning some information, then you will no longer feel such great disappointment when it happens. Perhaps you'll even still be surprised at something, even if you saw it coming a few miles away.
Of course you can still extract enjoyment when you're fully informed - it's a different enjoyment from a different experience.
Your argument contains an unsupported value assessment of the different experiences. How can you consider one to be more valid than another? It's an apples and oranges problems - people are trying to extract different kinds of experiences from the same viewing.
Sure, some people make too big a deal out of being spoiled - but it's sort of like the disappointment that arises when you drop the last bite of a piece of food you were really enjoying. It doesn't invalidate the experience, nor does it make any of what you just ate taste any worse - but you know you were deprived of the full possible experience through circumstances beyond your control, and that's fucking lame.
The fundamental thing I think I'm missing in this argument is why it has to be one way or another - multiple viewings of the same piece of art give us different information because each happens in a different specific context. The most complete experience is given by multiple instances of consumption and digestion. This is not hard.
Consuming a work unspoiled and spoiled are two totally different and equally valid experiences that yield different information. Neither is a complete experience.
There is a lot of talk about the "cheapness" of surprise, but I submit that it's not the actual fault of surprise as a mechanic.
Puns are essentially the antithesis of surprise. They're all about elaborate setup to deliver a line that becomes obvious before it's actually spoken. The goal is to take the entire audience along your thought process, through the twists and turns of your brain, and arrive at the same point. A well-crafted pun elicits groans because everyone saw it coming and nobody tried to stop it.
Yet a pun is easily as "cheap" as a jump scare. Low-hanging fruit in either case. Actually, I look down on puns much more than cheap scares, but that's a matter of personal preference.
The point is that both of these mechanics - the surprise and the obvious endpoint - have their root in audience manipulation, and the reason they work is because the audience wants to be manipulated.
Are you saying the only compelling media are those whose outcomes are wholly predictable?
So then you must believe that there are compelling surprises and cheap surprises? Because otherwise your argument is ludicrously self-contradictory.
You can tell when Dan is watching Drew play, even though he knows what is coming, he's still excited to see it happen. If the entire payoff is some revelation, then once you have that information the rest is irrelevant and always will be.