Spoiler tags

[gallimaufry]

42.

[Dusty Chalk]

I guess it's hard for at least one to see why it's a "much needed" feature...To those where this is all obvious I'm sure I'm coming off as a moron...

Yeah, pretty much. Did you even read my post? Skip the part about Super Ex-Girlfriend, you obviously didn't understand that that was an example of how a spoiler spoils (in this case, the spoiler was the title, not the ensuing discussion). I thought I explained pretty clearly how the spoiler spoiled, and why it did. Forget the rest of the film, and the fact that you didn't enjoy it -- I don't care, you're not taking the example for how the example was intended. I thought I did a pretty good job of explaining how spoilers spoil in general, and you didn't even bring that part up.

[blessingx]

Now, if somebody really liked Lost and read all that shit before seeing the show, then they would be pissed at me and would not enjoy the show as much when they did watch it. Surely you see that Ric, right?

Yes. And that's probably a great example because the twists* are at its core. Shows like Lost, 24, etc. are about puzzle primarily, and that last thing you want is someone telling you where all the pieces go in advance. That's the whole point of of doing a jigsaw. My blind spot was I only experience this with film and really don't watch any serial television, so I didn't take that into consideration. My rules, at least, are different in film and while I hate to call television more disposable, I do think 'surviving' reveals/issues of repeat viewings are quite a bit different. For instance, it was apparent no matter what else it had to offer, The Crying Game made a big splash and was popular because of its 'switcharoo'. How many people rewatched it or even mentioned it a year later? Hardly anyone. I'd call that a negative as it didn't survive its reveal and better films always do.

I do 'get' spoilers. I know it's horrible to reveal a sports score before someone has watched the taped game or when the news on the East Coast posts a story for the Survivor finale before it airs on the West. In my limited world I've just heard it applied more to film and I was confused at what was new there. If anything more people see films on opening weeks now, but maybe the Internet has changed the rules.

* I'll not use "suspense," which it of course mostly is, because it's not as wide ranging as Hitchcock ("The Master of Suspense") used it, including even revealing the endpoints beforehand (showing body at beginning of Rope and passing out cards for late comers in the lobby). You can have suspense after the revealing (say second viewing) and if you don't there's probably a problem with the construct... at least in some forms. Otherwise, suspense would be the opposite of anticipation, which it's not.

And Dusty, sorry if there was a confusion, as I took what you said and compounded on it to show my difficulty finding where spoilers start. I certainly didn't think you proposed hiding titles or reworking that films first half, for instance. I'm a little surprised it's not apparent I read your post, but I do have difficulty with your example as you're discussing expectations based on the spoiler - in this case a title. The expectations weren't fulfilled, but why I feel that's linked to the films success is because people tend not to complain about unmet expectations when the result is more satisfying than the expectation. If it was truly a case of just 'different' so be it, but for a film as poorly created as that, it seems its larger issues are worth pointing out - especially within a dialog of how much damage a spoiler can do. And for spoilers to have grown into such an issue it must be more than a little fun sacrificed within a larger enjoyment, right? It gets to the core and of course that plays into what else is offered.

[riceboy]

Great implementation Todd . I like the spoiler tags. Thanks a bunch

You're the best

Woot

Okay, I'm abusing the spoiler feature, but it's so

and fun.

[krrm]

(A lot of text deleted)

"I sympathize with the desire to eliminate gameplay elements you find annoying, but I'm afraid it isn't going to happen."

Temuchin Khan (http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=283740#283740)

[Dusty Chalk]

If anything more people see films on opening weeks now, but maybe the Internet has changed the rules.

No, that's not true at all. Yes, there is a large contingent of people who watch movies as soon as they come out, and yes, they tend to gather on the net to talk about it right away. But you'd have to be stupid if you thought that that made up the entirety of the population. It's for everyone else's benefit that spoiler tags are needed. You who have seen it want to talk about it to anyone, but those who have not seen it, do not want to hear about it, so you should exclude your conversation exclusively to those who've seen it already. Hence, spoiler tags.

But then there's the dilemma -- the people who have not seen it who are on the fence about seeing it, but still want to hear about it from people who have seen it, without spoiling it for them. I know I'd never go to you about that, because you don't know how to censor what spoils a movie out of what you'd say about it.

And your point about "better" or "worse" films is totally lost on me. Practically all films these days have a "reveal" that doesn't survive multiple viewings. So yes, there's an entire school of thought that reveals are worth protecting. So fuck y'all that've seen it first, don't ruin it for the rest of us.

And for that matter, there's an entire category of people who don't watch movies until they're released on DVD or BluRay or whatnot. So there's a whole second tier of people who don't see it until it's released for home viewing, which starts the cycle all over again.

Yeah, I think I'm going to have to agree with Nate -- if you gotta ask, you ain't never gonna get to know. But do, please, shut up about it (the spoilers, not the discussion). I feel kind of tricked into talking to you about it -- initially, you seemed like you sincerely wanted to understand, but now it seems you want me to understand why you want to be able to reveal, and quite frankly, I will never agree with you about that.

[blessingx]

Well Dusty, I did defend myself a bit there from your last response, but am sincerely curious what is new, and tried to point out what I thought was not, leading up to the sudden raise in need of spoiler prevention. Which as you mentioned in probably mostly due to immediate borderless internet discussion (no relationship to when show came to town and newspaper reviews in decades of VHS - or waiting for flicks to come on cable or the networks - could be more easily avoided). I guess I rarely see any real damage, but as I mentioned I'm blind to a lot of this because of what I drift towards watching. My experiences have been on the opposite side - for the record when discussing what a film is about (usually the directors/screenwriters intentions), not the actions which take place in the film. You can feel the fear though is the former will inherently end up in the latter (which is not the case). And thus stopping a larger in-depth discussion. But those experiences are personal, usually when talking in person, and besides the point of the larger discussion. I brought in a little baggage and sorry about that. I'm still a little confused by how quickly people label something 'spoilers' and to a much smaller respect how we survived without the protection so long (even a few years ago and yes I'm on several film boards), but didn't mean to take this to left field in a feature announcement. Sorry about that.

"Practically all films these days have a 'reveal' that doesn't survive multiple viewings." You my be right and another cause why protection is suddenly important. As reveals are far from new, if it's a bigger deal now, that may mean there's less of something else there - a depressing proposition.

[Voltron]

:horsey: :horsey: :horsey:

[Dusty Chalk]

...I...am sincerely curious what is new...leading up to the sudden raise in need of spoiler prevention.

There's nothing new or sudden about it. There are people (myself included, but there are others in my family who are even worse), who forbid people from discussing a movie that they haven't seen yet. This doesn't happen on the intarwebz, it happens in real life, verbally. As far as I know, it's always been around.

I mean, think back to the movie Halloween: "Due to the shocking nature of the movie, no-one will be allowed in to the film during the last two minutes!!!1!" or something to that effect. That was freakin' 1978, 30 years ago.

I have no problem with most movies having big reveals, I've long since come to terms with that, as that's been the case for most of my movie-watching lifetime. I've seen experiments by the likes of Brian Eno with "static" films that are more like sculpture -- you don't necessarily have to watch the whole thing to get it, but you leave, you come back, and you get a different perspective on it, or you don't come back, and you take away what you got. Bleah. I'd rather have a good old typical Hollywood movie where something happens, something else happens (to complicate things), and then a third thing happens (to resolve things).

I still find enjoyable stuff to watch in those movies, which is why my favourite movies are the movies in which it is obvious that the film-makers (be they the writers, the actors, the director, or whomever) are having fun making the movie. Take From Dusk Til Dawn, for example -- one of the best things about that movie is the fun they were having with the special effects. And yet it's still so strong, and comes across so clearly, that it's still contagious, no matter how much critique you can lob at the rest of the film.

But you still have to respect those who are only going to watch the movie the once (and I think statistically it's safe to predict that most people watch most movies only once).

And it's not fair to judge the "damage" you do yourself -- the "damage" is perceived. That's like saying, "oh, I didn't hit you that hard". Sounds like the talk of a bully to me.