Spoiling Twists In Older Works of Fiction

[Brian Cronin]

Do you think there exists a time limit on when you can spoil a film/book/comic's twist?

Is it okay to talk about the end of Citizen Kane to someone who hasn't seen it?

The end of The Crying Game?

The end of Watchmen?

The end of The Sixth Sense?

Or should you always be cognizant of spoilers to people who have not seen/read the work?

-Brian

[ATOM HOTEP]

Do you think there exists a time limit on when you can spoil a film/book/comic's twist?

Is it okay to talk about the end of Citizen Kane to someone who hasn't seen it?

The end of The Crying Game?

The end of Watchmen?

The end of The Sixth Sense?

Or should you always be cognizant of spoilers to people who have not seen/read the work?

-Brian

I think it's a combination of

A. How obscure the work is
B. How old it is

I am not much of a spoilers guy, though, so I could be wrong.

[brundlefly]

In general conversation with other people, I don't abstain from talking about the endings or twists or whatever of a movie, book, comic, etc. But if I'm recommending it to someone or talking to someone who makes a point that they haven't read/seen it, I'll try not to spoil. Unless they give me the "I'm never going to get around to actually reading/watching that; just tell me what happens" go ahead.

[stealthwise]

Don't give anything away.

About anything.

Man, I hate when someone posts a new thread that says "should I read Watchmen?" or "just ordered it," and then some asswipe comes along and spoils the ending of it.

Spoiler tags are our best friends.


Sorry, I even hate movie trailers, and I don't read the back of books, as they give away far too much.

[thespianphryne]

I think after a while a work of fiction comes with the notion of 'reasonable expectation of familiarity'. If I'm in a group of people who are familiar with the genre or medium about which we're speaking I make no particular effort at obscuring details, even though there might be few persons who aren't familiar with the twist.

But when I know that someone I'm talking to hasn't seen/read the work and might be interested in actually exploring the fictional work I'll try to keep things under wraps, especially if the deep enjoyment of the work is based on the full impact of the twist.

Also like ATOM HOTEP said, how obscure is the work? If there's someone who doesn't know what happens to Julius Caesar on the steps of the senate, well that's just too bad.


-Das

[stealthwise]

Also like ATOM HOTEP said, how obscure is the work? If there's someone who doesn't know what happens to Julius Caesar on the steps of the senate, well that's just too bad.


-Das

True, but Caesar's murder isn't a "twist," and it's made obvious from the very beginning of the play how things will turn out for poor Julius.

I think that the definition of "obscurity" in a work is tricky on a comic book message board. There are new visitors to CBR every single day, and I'm still astounded by the number of people who have yet to read, say, Watchmen. That's why I always like to have people place major details into spoiler tags, or at least label threads accordingly.

[cactusmaac]

It's OK to spoil something after I've seen it.

[stealthwise]

It's OK to spoil something after I've seen it.

Gimme those eyes!

*grabs the ice cream scoop and uses it in unbearably graphic ways*

How do you like DEM APPLES?

[K'Nort]

I think it's only polite to avoid spoilers in actual conversations. But in something more formal and impersonal like an article or essay, it is fine to throw them in when needed.

[yo go re]

I actually have trouble with this issue - when I'm writing a review, sometimes there's a character you just can't AVOID giving spoilers for. Norman Bates, for instance. I'm always torn about whether I should just go ahead and refer to stuff, or try to keep it secret. How deeply the spoiler is ingrained into popular culture plays a part of it, for sure - would anyone consider Darth Vader's identity a spoiler, or is it just too well known?

Sorry, I even hate movie trailers, and I don't read the back of books, as they give away far too much.
You and I would get along in this regard, that's for sure - I don't even watch the "next week on _____" things that are at the end of every tv show. Why the hell would I want to know what I'm going to be watching before I watch it?

Say, for example, Lost. I already watch Lost. I enjoy Lost. I'm going to watch Lost next week not because they show me 30 seconds of it, but because I like watching the show. Is there anyone anywhere ever that has NOT watched a show they like because the previous week's failed to remind them that it would be on? Or taken to a terrible extreme, "this season on ______" which shows love to put after the season debut.

Even worse? Shows that give it all away in the episode title. If you've got a Doctor Who episode called "The Daleks Do Such-and-Such," then you've got zero leverage when you (invariably) try to tease their introduction.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I find it odd when mods don't ask for spoilers in the title of a thread when it discusses something that hasn't been collected in trade yet.
I complained once about an event in Ultimate Spiderman that was spoilt, and was told that it had been out for a while so I should know.

[dancj]

Personally I think you should always give spoiler warnings. No matter how old something is there's always someone who hasn't seen/read it.

[DoctorNemesis]

Depends on the context, I suppose. If I'm in conversation with someone, I'll always at least ask if they've seen the movie / episode before I start discussing it to make sure, but if it's online or something written for a mass audience the line starts to blur. If it was only made available recently I'll try and keep the surprise or put it in tags to protect people, but if it's fairly old, or if it's something where the big twist or the end of the plot is fairly well known, even to people who haven't actually seen the movie (like the aforementioned Norm Bates example)... there's some things that you just can't help but spoil, really.

I don't mind spoilers, actually. But then, I'm one of those heathens who always reads the back pages of books first before I start.

Even worse? Shows that give it all away in the episode title. If you've got a Doctor Who episode called "The Daleks Do Such-and-Such," then you've got zero leverage when you (invariably) try to tease their introduction.

That was always one of the most laughable parts of old Doctor Who - the way they'd expect us to be astonished - astonished! - by the sudden cliffhanger appearance at of a Dalek half an hour into episode one of a story called... "Invasion / Planet / Destiny / Etc of the Daleks". Difficult to see that little shocker coming. :)

[Joe Rice]

Spoilers don't bother me either way. It's not about what happens, it's about the execution.

[Josh S]

I don't mind knowing the twist before I see/read something, either. In fact, with movies I usually like to know the ending/twist before hand.

One thing I hate is people who refuse to "spoil" something for me because they would want to be surprised. By their logic shouldn't I spoil works for them?

[Stony]

Pure unadulterated Evil.

[stealthwise]

I find it odd when mods don't ask for spoilers in the title of a thread when it discusses something that hasn't been collected in trade yet.
I complained once about an event in Ultimate Spiderman that was spoilt, and was told that it had been out for a while so I should know.

Grr, YES! Gods, I hate that, as I also get USM in trade, along with quite a few other books. Hell, I get Y in singles, and everyone else under the sun that reads that book seems to get it in trade, so I keep my mouth shut, and just smile politely when they make guesses as to what will happen next.

[Merey]

Do you think there exists a time limit on when you can spoil a film/book/comic's twist?

Is it okay to talk about the end of Citizen Kane to someone who hasn't seen it?

The end of The Crying Game?

The end of Watchmen?

The end of The Sixth Sense?

Or should you always be cognizant of spoilers to people who have not seen/read the work?

-Brian


I think, in general, it's just plain courtesy to ask the other person whether or not they've read/seen X and, if not, what they do or do not want revealed before launching into a discussion of it.

Yes, it is pretty safe to assume that a 20-something year-old knows the fates of Romeo and Juliet, but maybe 13 year-old who will be reading it in his/her English class that year, doesn't. So, really, just always be aware of your audience because spoiling someone sucks!

[Rob Allen]

Charles Schulz got a lot of flak for spoiling the end of Citizen Kane in a Peanuts comic strip that came out at least two decades after the movie. When I read that particular strip, I had not seen the movie yet or heard about the ending, so I'm one of the "victims" of that spoil.

On the other hand, my wife wants all the spoilers she can get. She refuses to go to a movie without hearing in detail what it's about. So there are people who are not bothered at all by spoilers.

[Omar Karindu]

Maybe it's because I'm from an academic background, but frankly, anyoen who wanders into a serious or critical discussion of a work of fiction ought to expect spoilers. To have those kinds of discussions, it's necessary to talk -- sometimes at length -- about plot and theme and all the other goodies one doesn't have before reading the thing.

Similarly, if the thread is called, say, "Worst/Best Origins Ever" or "Favorite Plot Twists" or so on...well, again, it's simply not possible to be involved in such a discussion without at least briefly discussing the origins or plot twists or whatnot in question, not if you want to reason for or defend your opinion on matters.

Now, reviews, recommendation threads, and other such stuff -- those need to be spoiler-free or spoiler-tagged.

[Joe Rice]

I don't understand people that treat literature, film, or comics as a goddam jack-in-the-box. It's a craft, not a surprise game.

[Lorendiac]

I think, in general, it's just plain courtesy to ask the other person whether or not they've read/seen X and, if not, what they do or do not want revealed before launching into a discussion of it.

That kind of give-and-take can actually work in a face-to-face, one-on-one conversation with a friend or relative. On the other hand, if you're writing something to post on the Internet, what are you supposed to do? Your audience isn't right there in front of you, ready to answer questions about previous knowledge, and your audience definitely isn't just one person.

Yes, it is pretty safe to assume that a 20-something year-old knows the fates of Romeo and Juliet, but maybe 13 year-old who will be reading it in his/her English class that year, doesn't. So, really, just always be aware of your audience because spoiling someone sucks!

I read "Romeo and Juliet" for the first time in my freshman year in high school. But you'd better believe I had already known for years that the whole point of the play was that they both died tragically at the end!

Recently I reread one of my old online essays about something comic book-related and noticed that I had spelled out the exact ending of the old Greek tragedy "Oedipus Rex" in order to illustrate a point. What was I supposed to do instead? Preface the entire essay with a note saying: "Please don't read this if you are not already familiar with the Greek myth concerning the sad fate of Oedipus?" After something over two thousand years, I don't think Spoiler Warnings should be necessary! :)

The main place where I draw the line is this: I don't believe in shamelessly spoiling the main twist of a mystery novel or similar work of suspense where much of the story just builds up to One Big Revelation near the very end.

I regard "Batman: The Long Halloween" as the comic book equivalent of a murder mystery novel, for instance, so on occasions when I write about its ending and who might have committed which murders, I do include Spoiler Warnings to scare off those who have never read it. On the other hand, I don't usually feel it necessary to include Spoiler Warnings for the endings of a "typical superhero story arc" that was published years ago, because most of them aren't structured as mysteries. For instance, I've probably mentioned the sad fate of Jean Grey (or what appeared to be Jean Grey) in the Dark Phoenix Saga many different times, because that wasn't a "murder mystery" and I figure people who haven't actually read it yet will just have to take their chances on being hit over the head with Spoilers for it. I personally already knew how it ended before I ever had a chance to read the source material, and I still found it pretty darn gripping when I did!

Okay -- the above paragraphs shared some of my own thoughts and policies on writing Spoilers for old stories. Now I'll mention how I sometimes feel when I take it from the other end, as a guy reading online discussions of recently released stuff he hasn't read yet!

The last few years, I almost always "wait for the trade" where new stuff from Marvel or DC is concerned, with rare exceptions. But I've also been a regular participant on various comic book forums for about three years now. I generally (not always) stay away from discussion threads whose titles make it crystal-clear that they are for reviewing and analyzing a just-released issue of something, such as the latest "Batman" or "Amazing Spider-Man" story.

But eventually some spoilers pop up in stuff I'm reading in one thread or another -- and sometimes a thread title catches my eye as someone reacts in outrage to a very controversial event. For instance: I wasn't buying the monthly issues of the "Batman" title when "War Crimes" came out, but I soon grasped the essentials of what it established about the murderous behavior of Leslie Tompkins. :(

Likewise, I wasn't buying "Amazing Spider-Man" monthly when "Sins Past" came out, but I quickly picked up on the bare essentials that two super-strong youngsters had just introduced air as the long-lost children of Gwen Stacy by Norman Osborn in a sexual encounter that was conveniently retconned in out of thin air for the occasion! :(

Both ideas struck me as hideously bad. I eventually read "Sins Past" after it came out in TPB; the basic idea still strikes me as hideously bad. (Although I did manage to amuse myself by writing and posting a scathing parody that poked fun at every plot hole I could find!)

But did I get mad about having the key surprises of those two story arcs Spoiled for me over the last few years? No! Given my policy of "waiting for the trade," I have long since accepted that if I do that, and also insist upon participating in online discussions of matters related to superhero comic books, I'm going to stumble across Spoilers at regular intervals. (On the bright side, the Spoilers I see are often references to things in titles that I don't even intend to collect in trade when the TPB editions become available, so what do I care?)

If I couldn't stand the risk of Spoilers, I would only drop in once in a blue moon to start a brand new thread with something lengthy I had just written, and then hastily run away before any nasty Spoilers might creep into my consciousness if I bothered to read other people's posts. But I don't do it that way. Anybody who is afraid of Spoilers would have the same option to avoid the forums as much as possible.


P.S. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, I used to be a regular participant in various discussion boards regarding the epic fantasy series "The Wheel of Time." At least a couple of the groups of fans I hung out with had a rule that went like this: Every couple of years, when a new novel in the fantasy series was first released in the stores, you were expected to use lots of Spoiler warnings in your titles for any plot twists you wanted to discuss. For instance, you wouldn't say in your title "So-and-so dies in Chapter 36 -- let's talk about it!" Instead, you would say something like "Chapter 36 -- SPOILERS" in your title, and that would warn people that if they hadn't already gotten a copy of the book for themselves, or hadn't read as far as Chapter 36 in it, then they had no business reading your new post and its replies unless they were just dying to get hit over the head with advance information.

However -- after about six weeks the Spoiler Warnings were no longer required in titles. The thinking was: "This is a forum dedicated to discussing this author's ongoing series. Anybody who wanders in off the street ought to be aware that we might even be discussing the most recently published book in the series. Newcomers will just have to take their chances on having things mentioned in books they haven't read yet! If they can't face that risk, why are they here at all?"


[I wrote all of the above in one sitting, practically "stream-of-consciousness." Good thing I'm a fast typist :)]

[Gingold]

Shakespeare reveals the ending to Romeo and Juliet at the very beginning of the play.

[Lorendiac]

Shakespeare reveals the ending to Romeo and Juliet at the very beginning of the play.

I blush to confess that I'd temporarily forgotten about that introductory sonnet that outlines the plot -- although I did remember (and declined to mention) that the full title of the play is "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet." Which is a big clue that at least one or the other of the lovebirds is going to die before all is said and done! ;)

(Also, if memory serves, Shakespeare was dusting off a plot that had been used before by other writers, so there was a great chance that many of his original audience would get the point as soon as they saw the names "Romeo and Juliet.")

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I don't understand people that treat literature, film, or comics as a goddam jack-in-the-box. It's a craft, not a surprise game.

Can't it be both?

If you want me to look at your craft, there should be a hook to get me in.
Not knowing exactly where it's going to go is entertaining.

Also, the jack and the box can be worked into the craft - take American Gods.
There's some damn good craft in hiding clues in that book (which also plays into some of the books larger themes).
So the first time around I enjoyed the mystery that the character was going through, then I went back and looked and loved the fact that everything was there from the get go, it had just been hidden without really being hidden.
Gave me a greater appreciation of it as a whole.

Anyway, your an elitist pratt, so who cares what you think - Morrison Fan!

[stealthwise]

I don't understand people that treat literature, film, or comics as a goddam jack-in-the-box. It's a craft, not a surprise game.

Because some people don't view/read art for the sake of the craft, they want to the damned experience of it. I like both, and I like to be able to come to something completely fresh and unaware, so that I can appreciate the work as it is meant to be explored initially, THEN I can pick it apart and see how it works, critiquing, etc.

For example, some jerk gave away the ending to The Usual Suspects before I saw it, and I found the movie to be almost unbearable. I want to be able to watch the damn thing on my own terms, then go back and see how clever Singer was being in parts.

Spoiling movies or books or games, etc, for someone else is taking away that initial experience from them.

[Joe Rice]

For example, some jerk gave away the ending to The Usual Suspects before I saw it, and I found the movie to be almost unbearable. I want to be able to watch the damn thing on my own terms, then go back and see how clever Singer was being in parts.


If a spoiler ruins a movie, it wasn't a good movie.

[yo go re]

That's just silly.

I don't understand people that treat literature, film, or comics as a goddam jack-in-the-box. It's a craft, not a surprise game.
Because, as long as we're all experiencing time in a linear fashion, EVERY story is a jack in the box. Literature, film, comics, conversations, a walk down the street... all of it. A story's got a beginning, a middle and an end, crafted to be told a certain way, and ruining the end is ruining the storyteller's work. The enjoyment is in the story told just as much as it's in the way the story is told.

There's... well, I was going to say "a fine line," but there isn't. There's a world of difference between having a good, in-depth discussion of a work (examining the craft) and just telling people what happens (spoilers)...

[Joe Rice]

That's just silly.


Because, as long as we're all experiencing time in a linear fashion, EVERY story is a jack in the box. Literature, film, comics, conversations, a walk down the street... all of it. A story's got a beginning, a middle and an end, crafted to be told a certain way, and ruining the end is ruining the storyteller's work. The enjoyment is in the story told just as much as it's in the way the story is told.

There's... well, I was going to say "a fine line," but there isn't. There's a world of difference between having a good, in-depth discussion of a work (examining the craft) and just telling people what happens (spoilers)...

Nobody said there wasn't a difference between those two things. I still find a reliance on "not being spoiled" a very superficial way to view something; I understand others don't, so I don't go around spoiling everything. Doesn't mean I don't find it silly though. We know the ending to almost every great work of art or story. It doesn't make them less great or less enjoyable. The story told is, in good work, very much less important than the telling of the story. Not like there's very many original stories anyway; even so, if you've studied writing at all it's nearly impossible to find something that you can't predict note-for-note after the first quarter anyway.

[stealthwise]

If a spoiler ruins a movie, it wasn't a good movie.

In the example I gave though, the spoiler didn't ruin the movie, it just ruined my experience of viewing the movie. The Usual Suspects is a great movie (I've seen it since), but I didn't enjoy it at all that first time because I knew exactly what to look for once I knew the ending.

Similarly, I've viewed and re-viewed different movies like Dark City, Fight Club, Donny Darko, Memento, etc, and the first time and the last time are very different experiences.

[K'Nort]

Charles Schulz got a lot of flak for spoiling the end of Citizen Kane in a Peanuts comic strip that came out at least two decades after the movie. When I read that particular strip, I had not seen the movie yet or heard about the ending, so I'm one of the "victims" of that spoil.

I'm another!


I'm also someone who likes puzzles. And grew up mostly on mysteries. So part of the appeal of many stories for me is whether I can figure things out ahead of the official reveal. Now it's certainly still important that it's well done. I'm not arguing for twists over craft. But some of us ALSO enjoy the twists. Some don't. Even if the story isn't flat-out ruined by giving things away, it's still lessened, and I'd just as soon avoid that too. And it's not like it's all high-craft, so it needs something else.

[Merey]

That kind of give-and-take can actually work in a face-to-face, one-on-one conversation with a friend or relative. On the other hand, if you're writing something to post on the Internet, what are you supposed to do? Your audience isn't right there in front of you, ready to answer questions about previous knowledge, and your audience definitely isn't just one person.


Out of habit and practice of good internet etiquette, I always put potential spoilers in spoiler tags. But most of my internet etiquette was developed posting on Television Without Pity where spoiling is among the greatest offenses you can do on that board.

Shakespeare reveals the ending to Romeo and Juliet at the very beginning of the play.

True, I used a very bad example. And because I feel the need to offer up an example, I choose to replace Romeo and Juliet with another 9th grade favorite, Of Mice and Men.

[Gingold]

True, I used a very bad example. And because I feel the need to offer up an example, I choose to replace Romeo and Juliet with another 9th grade favorite, Of Mice and Men.

:)

Every year, some of my ninth graders get really pissed off when we read the prologue to R&J because it gives the ending away. Which usually leads to some other kids saying, "what kind of retard doesn't know that they die?". Always a good time.

[Dan Apodaca]

Spoilers don't bother me either way. It's not about what happens, it's about the execution.

Exactly. I find it really odd that a person's enjoyment of a movie/book/whatever can be so hugely based on plot twists.

Plot's not even half of the equation. If a movie's worth is based solely on plot, it is an entirely temporary work of art.

I say spoilers are fair game within the context of pop culture. For most movies, once something's out on video, it's your fault if you get spoiled. In general, it's your fault if you get spoiled. Either you should have seen it by now, or you should not come sniffing around wherever people are spoiling.

[Dan Apodaca]

Because some people don't view/read art for the sake of the craft, they want to the damned experience of it.

That IS the experience of it. The other stuff is your own brain working with and around the subject matter. You don't need a movie to get that brain mojo going.

[Ronald Bryan]

I like having surprises, but it all comes down to how well written/acted/directed something is that makes it good. So, I don't mind learning that Winter Soldier is really a sled, as long as the journey getting there is exciting.

However, I try to give people a couple months to catch up but eventually, either watch it/read it, or don't complain.

[90'sCartoonMan]

Because some people don't view/read art for the sake of the craft, they want to the damned experience of it. I like both, and I like to be able to come to something completely fresh and unaware, so that I can appreciate the work as it is meant to be explored initially, THEN I can pick it apart and see how it works, critiquing, etc.

For example, some jerk gave away the ending to The Usual Suspects before I saw it, and I found the movie to be almost unbearable. I want to be able to watch the damn thing on my own terms, then go back and see how clever Singer was being in parts.

Spoiling movies or books or games, etc, for someone else is taking away that initial experience from them.

Having something spoiled prevents you from coming in fresh and changes how you view the work. If you knew the butler did it, you're going to be looking at him strangely through the whole thing. It may even come across as predictable, which would ruin your enjoyment of it.

Spoilers are dangerous. I still wonder how I'd view Psycho, Citizen Kane, Planet of the Apes, and Empire Strikes Back not having those twists spoiled for me years before I even watched them. When they're big twists like that, I avoid telling people, no matter how old they are.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Nobody said there wasn't a difference between those two things. I still find a reliance on "not being spoiled" a very superficial way to view something; I understand others don't, so I don't go around spoiling everything. Doesn't mean I don't find it silly though. We know the ending to almost every great work of art or story. It doesn't make them less great or less enjoyable. The story told is, in good work, very much less important than the telling of the story. Not like there's very many original stories anyway; even so, if you've studied writing at all it's nearly impossible to find something that you can't predict note-for-note after the first quarter anyway.

What's the point of even having a plot then?
Why don't we all just sit around reading/writing poetry?

You sound like someone who's lost the ability to enjoy a story for what it is - a story.
I mean Black Dhalia is a great book due to it's atmosphere and characterization, but if I knew what happened at the end, it wouldn't have been half as enjoyable - the 'ride' component was a big part, as it is with most films.
Unforgiven is another - you could have told me the end, but it wouldn't have had half as much impact as it did when I'd spent two and a half hours getting to know the characters involved, if I'd known their fates from the outset.

I had Crying Game spoiled for me, and the impact of the twist was lost for me - I didn't get that moment of shock that everyone else got, and a big part of the experience of the film was ruined for me.

[dancj]

If a spoiler ruins a movie, it wasn't a good movie.
A spoiler takes away an experience. I don't know what it's like to watch Sixth Sense without knowing what's going on because some dickhead spoiled it. I still enjoyed the film and I enjoyed seeing the clues, but now a film that I could have watched twice and enjoyed in two different ways has had one of those ways taken away from me.

BTW - Please no-one spoil Citizen Kane for me. I haven't seen it yet and I don't know the ending.

[yo go re]

We know the ending to almost every great work of art or story. It doesn't make them less great or less enjoyable. The story told is, in good work, very much less important than the telling of the story.
I'd disagree on the "very." The final punchline of the plot is less important that the way you get to it, but that ending really counts, too.

I also agree with you that a movie "ruined" by a spoiler isn't a good movie: no one's enjoyment of Sleepaway Camp is going to be shot to hell because they know what happens; however, the same can't be said for The Crying Game. It doesn't matter if you know the twist at the end of Friday the 13th - it does matter if you know the end of The Sixth Sense.

Why? Because, as others have said, a good story that builds toward an unexpected ending is actually two different stories: the one you see when you're surprised, and the one you see when you go through it again. A bad one is just the surprise. So even in a good film (or book or play or whatever), when you tell someone what happens, you've just blown half the worth of the work. You can only be surprised by The Empire Strikes Back one time, and that surprise has value.

That said, I think Brian's weird Daredevil posts have given us an idea of just how long his personal expiration date is...

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I also agree with you that a movie "ruined" by a spoiler isn't a good movie: no one's enjoyment of Sleepaway Camp is going to be shot to hell because they know what happens; however, the same can't be said for The Crying Game.

The Crying Game is still a good film - I mean the twist is halfway through - if not before that - and the rest is about the relationship that develops.
I just felt robbed of not ever having had that initial moment of shock/revulsion that members of the audience got to feel alongside the character.
I got to see and feel their relationship after that point, but it was a different experience to someone who saw it, felt the shock, and then got to feel and experience the reconciliation/acceptance that the characters go through after that.
(not to mention that the big twist is really the second twist - the main character isn't presented as the main character - for the first ten or fifteen he's just a side character).

Also, it was a different twist - what the hells wrong with enjoying a work because of that?
No one enjoys the unexpected happening anymore?

[JeffreyWKramer]

BTW - Please no-one spoil Citizen Kane for me. I haven't seen it yet and I don't know the ending.

There's a big lightsaber duel, and then...

No, wait. That's a different movie. Never mind.

[Dan Apodaca]

A spoiler takes away an experience. I don't know what it's like to watch Sixth Sense without knowing what's going on because some dickhead spoiled it.

It really wasn't that great. I've seen the movie again since, and the twist being fresh doesn't improve the quality of the movie. I'll grant you that it affects the novelty of it.

BTW - Please no-one spoil Citizen Kane for me. I haven't seen it yet and I don't know the ending.

I believe the phrase is "shit or get off the pot". You've had decades to see that movie. We're not here to accomodate you, you know.

[Dan Apodaca]

You can only be surprised by The Empire Strikes Back one time, and that surprise has value.

Can you explain why the surprise has value?

[Chris Nowlin]

Can you explain why the surprise has value?

I don't even know where to begin with that. There are lots of movies/shows where the first experience was different from the second because I didn't know what a twist would be.

Many of these can be even better experiences on subsequent viewings. But your first experience is a unique one. That jaw-dropping moment that twists everything you thought you knew about what just happened and you'll never be able to watch it under a false assumption again.

EDIT: That said, if such things don't work for you personally, you're of course welcome to your taste. To each his own and all that

[Dan Apodaca]

I don't even know where to begin with that. There are lots of movies/shows where the first experience was different from the second because I didn't know what a twist would be.

Many of these can be even better experiences on subsequent viewings. But your first experience is a unique one. That jaw-dropping moment that twists everything you thought you knew about what just happened and you'll never be able to watch it under a false assumption again.

EDIT: That said, if such things don't work for you personally, you're of course welcome to your taste. To each his own and all that

It just sounds to me like you're describing the novelty of seeing something for the first time. Sure, if you're enjoying it, there's an element of excitement to that, but no matter what the work in question, it's guaranteed to wear off immediately. That's just the way it works. Sure, sometimes something is layered enough that you can enjoy the novelty of newness in different places, but even then, it will wear off.

But yeah, nothing is ever going to be as exciting or fascinating as it was the first time.

So what?

If the enjoyment of a book or movie comes from the novelty of it, it's not a good book or movie. Hell, at that point it doesn't even have anything to do with the work. You're just enjoying the fun of getting or seeing something new.

Spoilers don't ruin a movie for you, they can only ruin you for a movie. And that's only if you let them.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

It just sounds to me like you're describing the novelty of seeing something for the first time. Sure, if you're enjoying it, there's an element of excitement to that, but no matter what the work in question, it's guaranteed to wear off immediately. That's just the way it works. Sure, sometimes something is layered enough that you can enjoy the novelty of newness in different places, but even then, it will wear off.

But yeah, nothing is ever going to be as exciting or fascinating as it was the first time.

So what?

If the enjoyment of a book or movie comes from the novelty of it, it's not a good book or movie. Hell, at that point it doesn't even have anything to do with the work. You're just enjoying the fun of getting or seeing something new.

Spoilers don't ruin a movie for you, they can only ruin you for a movie. And that's only if you let them.

We say the 'experience' of seeing something for the first time, you say 'novelty'.
Redefining terms to make our argument sound silly doesn't really remove the fact that it has a point.

If you want to view films/books as only an intellectual exercise, then bully for you.
Just don't shit on us for wanting to be able to enjoy the work as it's creator intended - because if they wanted us to know the end, they would have told it to us at the beginning.

[Chris Nowlin]

Note I'm talking specifically about the few things that have big twists which change the way you perceive the entire movie etc.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Note I'm talking specifically about the few things that have big twists which change the way you perceive the entire movie etc.

Like Luke and Leia pashing in Empire is totally different after you've seen Jedi, or Ben Reilly being the real Spiderman is different once you've realised it lasted for a month and got Howard Mackie black listed forever.

[dancj]

I believe the phrase is "shit or get off the pot". You've had decades to see that movie. We're not here to accomodate you, you know.
I'm not asking anyone to accommodate anyone. Just to show a reasonable amount of courtesy

[stealthwise]

Dan,

Most people are much more likely to enjoy a good comedy on the first, or second, or third try than they are the twentieth. It's how the human mind is conditioned, familiarity breeds contempt. That doesn't mean that, say, Caddyshack or Monty Python's Meaning of Life are poor movies just because it can't make you laugh like it used to.

It also means that you shouldn't spoil the jokes for those who haven't seen them yet.

[K'Nort]

Also, some of us almost never re-watch movies. So seeing something new is second only to quality. Whether the thing holds up is irrelevant.

[BillR]

Personally I think you should always give spoiler warnings. No matter how old something is there's always someone who hasn't seen/read it.

SPOILER WARNING!

Adam and Eve take a bite out of the apple.

[BillR]

Spoilers don't ruin a movie for you, they can only ruin you for a movie. And that's only if you let them.

I just saw Usual Suspects for the first time. I already knew the twist going in. I wonder if that ruined the movie for me, or if I would've thought it mediocre no matter what.

[stealthwise]

I just saw Usual Suspects for the first time. I already knew the twist going in. I wonder if that ruined the movie for me, or if I would've thought it mediocre no matter what.

Same thing happened to me, and I'm not sure. Need to rewatch it.

[Dan Apodaca]

I just saw Usual Suspects for the first time. I already knew the twist going in. I wonder if that ruined the movie for me, or if I would've thought it mediocre no matter what.

I don't know how you might have felt about it, but I sure found it mediocre from the get-go.

[Dan Apodaca]

We say the 'experience' of seeing something for the first time, you say 'novelty'.
Redefining terms to make our argument sound silly doesn't really remove the fact that it has a point.

You're so paranoid. I'm not trying to disarm your argument or anything like that. I'm expressing my opinion. That's all.

The enjoyment that comes from being surprised by the movie is novelty. The enjoyment that comes from watching a movie is experience.

If you want to view films/books as only an intellectual exercise, then bully for you.
Just don't shit on us for wanting to be able to enjoy the work as it's creator intended - because if they wanted us to know the end, they would have told it to us at the beginning.

Excuse me? What in the world makes you think I have a choice in what I find enjoyable about a movie or book? What makes you think I choose how I view it? I like what I like, just as everyone else does.

I'm not shitting on you for anything. I don't care one bit if you choose to avoid spoilers or not. You guys are the ones who always throw a shitstorm tantrum if somebody reveals something you weren't ready for.

[Dan Apodaca]

Also, some of us almost never re-watch movies. So seeing something new is second only to quality. Whether the thing holds up is irrelevant.

Well, again, that's your choice to operate in such a limiting fashion. It's going a little far to expect everyone else to work around your unique habit.

[Dan Apodaca]

Most people are much more likely to enjoy a good comedy on the first, or second, or third try than they are the twentieth. It's how the human mind is conditioned, familiarity breeds contempt. That doesn't mean that, say, Caddyshack or Monty Python's Meaning of Life are poor movies just because it can't make you laugh like it used to.

Comedies are actually a really terrible subject for your argument. The best comedies are not funny because of their plots. They may have hilarious plot points, but the actual comedy comes from the jokes. And yes, you're right. The novelty wears off after repeated viewing, but that's the way it is with all things in life.

Also, you may know what happens, but unless you've seen a clip, you don't know exactly how it happens. Your first time is still your first time, regardless of your previous knowledge of the movie.

It also means that you shouldn't spoil the jokes for those who haven't seen them yet.

No, it doesn't. Jokes are a combination or the writing and the delivery. Just hearing half of it wouldn't dismantle the comedy of the joke in its original telling.

[Dan Apodaca]

Note I'm talking specifically about the few things that have big twists which change the way you perceive the entire movie etc.

I can't think of a single movie which had a twist that changed the way I perceived the entire movie.

[Dan Apodaca]

I'm not asking anyone to accommodate anyone. Just to show a reasonable amount of courtesy

No, asking people to tiptoe around spoilers for Citizen Kane is not reasonable. That movie's older than I am. Animaniacs has parodied that movie. It is a concrete part of the public consciousness.

Please catch up.

[K'Nort]

Well, again, that's your choice to operate in such a limiting fashion. It's going a little far to expect everyone else to work around your unique habit.

I haven't been on the 'no spoilers' sides. I said it's polite to double-check in a real life conversation, but see no reason to have restrictions in print or online. We're all capable of staying out of the threads and review sites. Or even stopping mid-paragraph if the unexpected pops up.

I was speaking more on the importance of novelty angle. It varies depending on why you're watching the film in the first place. For those of us not wired to appreciate all those finer points like symbolism and theme and general craft (it's not really a choice; I've tried; it will always go over my head; just like in books, music, etc.), novelty becomes even more important as compensation.

But again, my problem. My responsibility to avoid spoilers. It's why I enjoy twists (and there seemed to be some confusion as to why anyone would). Not why I have some right to be protected from spoilers.

[K'Nort]

No, asking people to tiptoe around spoilers for Citizen Kane is not reasonable. That movie's older than I am. Animaniacs has parodied that movie. It is a concrete part of the public consciousness.


That does bring up a vague thought on the endurance of movies. I'm sure there were all kinds of twisty-turny mysteries back in the day, especially the noir era, that no one has heard of now. Or they've heard of them but they're not on AFI lists and don't appear regularly at revival theatres. There are twists and there are gimmicks. If a movie just has a gimmick, where the whole plot is leading to that, it's not going to become a classic. If it has twists as well as other things, it will still last. I'd heard about Citizen Kane at least a dozen times before I saw the film. Frankly, I think that bit is overrated. It was very incidental to the overall story. On the other hand, I would not have enjoyed The Usual Suspects if I already knew what was coming. I stuck with it to see where it was going, despite the characterization and dialog and such. The Crying Game has all kinds of plot separate from the twist (probably more than people who have never seen it realize) so that's still watchable. I mean, I remember it being a little melodramatic and wouldn't be able to rave to others, but it reviewed well. And it's not all about the twist like Usual Suspects or Sixth Sense.

I watched The Graduate for the first time about five years ago. When I started working my way through that first AFI top 100 list. I spoke to my mother about it afterwards and she said she thought people watching it now would miss a lot. Miss isn't quite the right word. But modern viewers would have a totally different experience. Because of Dustin Hoffman now being someone thoroughly recognizable rather than this total blank slate. She feels that's a film and a character where that makes a huge difference. I still enjoyed it. But as a period piece and a history lesson rather than as a statement about my own world right now, which is how it hit her. Sort of like reading cold war comics now for the first time. Movies depending on twists are like movies depending on being a product of their time. It can give them built-in obsolescence.

[K'Nort]

Blah blah blah.

But I just thought of enough famous spoiler. Like Peanuts.

There's a classic joke about a couple who go to the theatre to see Agatha Christie's Mousetrap. It was huge back in the day. The guy leaves either a crappy tip or none at all. So the cabbie shouts after him "In the play, [blank] did it!"

I came across the joke before I read the play, so that was a bit disappointing. I wasn't able to tell whether I'd have been able to figure it out on my own. But these things happen. Things hit a certain fame and then it's just impossible.

[stealthwise]

Comedies are actually a really terrible subject for your argument. The best comedies are not funny because of their plots. They may have hilarious plot points, but the actual comedy comes from the jokes. And yes, you're right. The novelty wears off after repeated viewing, but that's the way it is with all things in life.

Also, you may know what happens, but unless you've seen a clip, you don't know exactly how it happens. Your first time is still your first time, regardless of your previous knowledge of the movie.



No, it doesn't. Jokes are a combination or the writing and the delivery. Just hearing half of it wouldn't dismantle the comedy of the joke in its original telling.

Yes, but hearing someone act out or tell you the joke themselves really does help to kill it for you, especially if you haven't heard it before. A huge part of comedy, particularly over the past 20 years or so, is the "gotcha" factor in it. Sometimes part of the humour is the anticipation of expecting something, and then getting something entirely different. Look at Shaun of the Dead, or Hot Fuzz, both of which rely on genre expectations, and then upset them in favour of a humourous situation. The Simpsons movie does this a bit too, and I can think of several instances in that one where the impact would be severely lessened if I were to ruin the gag for someone before they saw it.

Part of appreciating art is being able to experience it with a clean slate, and not everyone cares about if a work is "good," and just want something to enjoy.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

You're so paranoid. I'm not trying to disarm your argument or anything like that. I'm expressing my opinion. That's all.

The enjoyment that comes from being surprised by the movie is novelty. The enjoyment that comes from watching a movie is experience.

I didn't say 'disarm' Dan, you're just redefining terms, which changes the intent of what the person meant.
C&C wasn't talking about novelty, but you said he was, and the basis of the argument changes. I's a weak technique.

But what about the experience of putting yourself in the film makers/authors hands, and just letting the story take you where it goes?
You say it's a novelty, but I say bullshit - it's an integral part of the experience.
Every Wes Anderson film I go to, I know I'm going to watch at least another six thousand times before I die. That said, there is a certain magic that first time where you don't know what's happening or where it's going to go.
Every shot, every line, every nuance is totally new, and reminds me all over again why I love his films.
If you're allowed to enjoy something for the first time, why isn't somebody else?


Excuse me? What in the world makes you think I have a choice in what I find enjoyable about a movie or book? What makes you think I choose how I view it? I like what I like, just as everyone else does.

Of course you do, but you're arguing for the side which said 'I think avoiding spoilers is silly'.
You may not have said it, but it's the comment that got a lot of us annoyed, and the side you've thrown in with.


I'm not shitting on you for anything. I don't care one bit if you choose to avoid spoilers or not. You guys are the ones who always throw a shitstorm tantrum if somebody reveals something you weren't ready for.

When did I throw a shit storm Dan?
Read the thread, I can watch and enjoy films over and over again, and watch films where I know what happens - all I've done is state a preference.

[Sean Walsh]

I've always worked with the belief that someone old or very widely popular is fair game. Citizen Kane, Crying Game, Empire Strikes Back, 6th Sense....they all fit the bill.

"If you ain't heard it by now, go screw - 'cause it ain't a spoiler to the rest of us." If you will. :p

More recent works of fiction, like a book currently in publication...or a movie that hasn't gotten the major multimedia play (where people on TV and radio and in print and online are talking about the spoilers)........I'd consider that much trickier ground.

[Michael P]

Can you explain why the surprise has value?

It recasts the entire relationship between the protagonist and the antagonist?

[BizarroBeachHead]

While I think Dan is undervaluing a good twist ending, I agree with him about Citizen Kane. The movie's more than twice my age.

I wouldn't spoil it because, well I wouldn't do that to someone who asks, but I am more surprised that someone hasn't been spoiled already. It's so ingrained into pop culture, I didn't think anybody didn't know the ending!

[Dan Apodaca]

Yes, but hearing someone act out or tell you the joke themselves really does help to kill it for you, especially if you haven't heard it before.

No, not really. Maybe it does for you, but for me, the joke operates on its own merits. For example, I heard lots of people reference Borat before I had seen it, and I heard about what some of the funny moments were. But I still laughed non-stop throughout that movie, because the comedy isn't in what he's doing, but in seeing him do it.

A huge part of comedy, particularly over the past 20 years or so, is the "gotcha" factor in it. Sometimes part of the humour is the anticipation of expecting something, and then getting something entirely different.

Sure, but that's a bottom-tier joke. If a joke's only funny the first time, then it's not as good of a joke as one makes you laugh repeatedly. That's what confuses me about this. It seems like you guys are complaining about missing out on the least important things.

Look at Shaun of the Dead, or Hot Fuzz, both of which rely on genre expectations, and then upset them in favour of a humourous situation. The Simpsons movie does this a bit too, and I can think of several instances in that one where the impact would be severely lessened if I were to ruin the gag for someone before they saw it.

Then it's not a very good joke.

Part of appreciating art is being able to experience it with a clean slate, and not everyone cares about if a work is "good," and just want something to enjoy.

Those are two majorly different arguments. The first, I disagree with. Experiencing art with a clean slate may be a part of the suspension of disbelief, but it's not an inherent part of art. Art is, at its fundamental level, communication between the artist, the observer, and other observers. This communication requires that the observers not be clean slates, or they will have nothing with which to respond. It's no longer communication, but lecturing. Take renaissance art, for example, which often uses the language of christian symbolism and theology to communicate the ideas that the artist wants. It is a precedent of ideas and metaphors that is humongously common amongts the observers, thus allowing the artist to communicate to the largest amount of people possible. The more people you have talking, the more interesting the conversation gets.

As for your other statement, you're perfectly entitled to seek out art for the sole purpose of entertainment. But if that's the case, then you shouldn't take the plot so seriously. Don't let yourself get all worked up about spoilers, when you're just trying to have a good time. There's a reason it's called mindless entertainment. You're not supposed to use your brain.

[Dan Apodaca]

It recasts the entire relationship between the protagonist and the antagonist?

And it doesn't stop doing that, just because you know it's coming.

[Dan Apodaca]

I didn't say 'disarm' Dan, you're just redefining terms, which changes the intent of what the person meant.
C&C wasn't talking about novelty, but you said he was, and the basis of the argument changes. I's a weak technique.

It's not a technique. He was talking about novelty, and calling it "the experience". The experience of the movie is in watching it, not being surprised by it. I'm not employing any tactics, I'm disagreeing.

But what about the experience of putting yourself in the film makers/authors hands, and just letting the story take you where it goes?
You say it's a novelty, but I say bullshit - it's an integral part of the experience.

Well, it's not like you really have choice in that. The movie's going to play out the way it was designed to, every time, whether you pay attention or not. You can let the story take you where it goes any time you want. You don't need to be ignorant of the plot to do that.

Every Wes Anderson film I go to, I know I'm going to watch at least another six thousand times before I die. That said, there is a certain magic that first time where you don't know what's happening or where it's going to go.
Every shot, every line, every nuance is totally new, and reminds me all over again why I love his films.

That is called the novelty of seeing it the first time. I'm not degrading the novelty, you just seem to be getting defensive about it, and trying to prove it's not what it is. You assume I think less of it, so you feel the need to validate it, is what it seems like.

If you're allowed to enjoy something for the first time, why isn't somebody else?

I didn't say they weren't allowed. You make it sound like I'm running around shouting spoilers in peoples' faces. I'm saying that it shouldn't matter as much as it seems to, to those people. There are more important and more interesting things about movies to be obsessed with.

Of course you do, but you're arguing for the side which said 'I think avoiding spoilers is silly'.
You may not have said it, but it's the comment that got a lot of us annoyed, and the side you've thrown in with.

So, it's only fitting that you make condescending remarks to me about it?

When did I throw a shit storm Dan?
Read the thread, I can watch and enjoy films over and over again, and watch films where I know what happens - all I've done is state a preference.

Don't take it so personally. I said "you guys", meaning people who get upset when spoilers are revealed to them. That is what we're talking about, after all.

[Chris Nowlin]

Don't let yourself get all worked up about spoilers, when you're just trying to have a good time. There's a reason it's called mindless entertainment. You're not supposed to use your brain.


I don't understand this statement at all.

If you're seeking entertainment and the spoilers prevent you from being entertained, then aren't they ruining the movie? And shouldn't they be avoided.

What are you arguing here?

The point is, spoilers never affect your enjoyment of a movie, any movie. Or any joke. Not even jokes which depend on surprise or an unexpected punchline. Not even movies which have an end reveal which makes you see the whole movie differently the next time you watch it. Not even simple whodunnits whose sole purpose is to give you clues and let you guess.

Others find that surprise can enhance some experiences and would prefer spoilers be avoided. That's what there is to it.

If you wish to better understand why the nature of surprise is meaningful to some, I'm sure people will continue to try to explain.

If you wish to tell people they're wrong for their preference, well, you're wrong.

[Omar Karindu]

Others find that surprise can enhance some experiences and would prefer spoilers be avoided. That's what there is to it.

If you wish to better understand why the nature of surprise is meaningful to some, I'm sure people will continue to try to explain.

If you wish to tell people they're wrong for their preference, well, you're wrong.

Ah, but there we return to the root of the discussion, which was about whether or not marking spoilers -- even in older works -- is somehow a responsibility.

It isn't. It isn't precisely because the desire to avoid spoilers is, as you put it, a preference. It's no one else's job to safeguard your preferences. If that were the case, it'd be my responsibility to buy copies of every failing comic because someone somewhere enjoys it and would be bothered were it canceled. (And there are fans who seem to have this attitude about their dying favorites, of course.)

I can understand, as a matter of common courtesy, marking out or avoiding spoilers for current material. In those cases, I could argue that someone hasn't gotten a fair chance to see or read the material, and I'm willing to concede to some self-applied limitations on my speech for reasons of simple ettiquette.

Beyond that, however -- a comic that's a month old, a movie that's been out for two weeks -- the person who hasn't read or seen the thing yet is simply behind the curve. The people who've seen or read the material ina timely fashion don't have to blank their text or watch their mouths simply to protect the latecomers. At that point, it becomes an imposition on me for no better reason that protecting your preference. It also becomes an impediment to those of us who want to discuss the stuff in depth.

The same goes for "waiting for the trade;" that's a choice, just like taping the big game is a choice, and only a narcissist or a fool could demand that the rest of creation take extra steps to ensure that they aren't spoiled by a side effect of their own choice to delay seeing the material.

Joining discussions is a choice, too; it, too, carries risks and requires that the joiner think about the other people in the discussion and the way in which the subject is being discussed. It requires, in short, a partial surrender of one's own preferences for the sake of community.

[stealthwise]

Ah, but there we return to the root of the discussion, which was about whether or not marking spoilers -- even in older works -- is somehow a responsibility.

It isn't. It isn't precisely because the desire to avoid spoilers is, as you put it, a preference. It's no one else's job to safeguard your preferences. If that were the case, it'd be my responsibility to buy copies of every failing comic because someone somewhere enjoys it and would be bothered were it canceled. (And there are fans who seem to have this attitude about their dying favorites, of course.)

I can understand, as a matter of common courtesy, marking out or avoiding spoilers for current material. In those cases, I could argue that someone hasn't gotten a fair chance to see or read the material, and I'm willing to concede to some self-applied limitations on my speech for reasons of simple ettiquette.

Beyond that, however -- a comic that's a month old, a movie that's been out for two weeks -- the person who hasn't read or seen the thing yet is simply behind the curve. The people who've seen or read the material ina timely fashion don't have to blank their text or watch their mouths simply to protect the latecomers. At that point, it becomes an imposition on me for no better reason that protecting your preference. It also becomes an impediment to those of us who want to discuss the stuff in depth.

The same goes for "waiting for the trade;" that's a choice, just like taping the big game is a choice, and only a narcissist or a fool could demand that the rest of creation take extra steps to ensure that they aren't spoiled by a side effect of their own choice to delay seeing the material.

Joining discussions is a choice, too; it, too, carries risks and requires that the joiner think about the other people in the discussion and the way in which the subject is being discussed. It requires, in short, a partial surrender of one's own preferences for the sake of community.

While you make a decent point, it also takes very very very little effort for anyone to simply mark a thread with *SPOILER* or to use the spoiler tags, to ensure that you're not ruining things for everyone. It's obvious from the thread here that there are quite a few people that prefer not to have things spoiled for them.

[yo go re]

Well, it's not like you really have choice in that. The movie's going to play out the way it was designed to, every time, whether you pay attention or not.
There's a difference between paying attention to events happening and knowing the events yet to come, and that certainly changes the movie. Well, some movies. Some you can see a dozen times and still get that fresh experience.

That is called the novelty of seeing it the first time. I'm not degrading the novelty, you just seem to be getting defensive about it, and trying to prove it's not what it is. You assume I think less of it, so you feel the need to validate it, is what it seems like.
Well, of course, because "novelty" = "frivolous." You insist on using a degrading word to describe it, then act innocent when folks take issue. It may not be a technique, but it's certainly being used like one. "Novel" says "unimportant beyond the amusement of the new," and that's ignoring the value.

I'm saying that it shouldn't matter as much as it seems to, to those people. There are more important and more interesting things about movies to be obsessed with.
But you don't get to say if it should or shouldn't matter to those people, or if there are more important things to be obsessed about. Imagine if my whole argument was that it doesn't matter enough to you, and I just kept on hammering that. "Your opinion is wrong, because you don't care about movies the way I do." That's what your posts are conveying, no matter what you're actually trying to say. Thus, people tend to get defensive...

[Punch]

There is nothing inherently degrading about the word "novelty". It simply means something new. I don't know where you get frivolous from.

[Punch]

weird....
I have posted in two threads and yet I'm not the last poster shown for those threads in the main directory

[zuludelta]

Do you think there exists a time limit on when you can spoil a film/book/comic's twist?

Is it okay to talk about the end of Citizen Kane to someone who hasn't seen it?

The end of The Crying Game?

The end of Watchmen?

The end of The Sixth Sense?

Or should you always be cognizant of spoilers to people who have not seen/read the work?

-Brian

I think there are certain works that have worked their way into the background context of popular culture so much that "spoiling" details doesn't really diminish the experience for the majority of the interested population, and that side-stepping commonly-known notions about these works actually detracts from the level of discourse.

For example, most contemporary superhero fans know that Gwen Stacy was killed... it doesn't even matter if they're intimately familiar with who killed her or under what circumstances she died. All that matters is that they know she died and Spider-Man somehow feels a burden of guilt over her death. On a comic book message board, I think it's a pretty valid common sense assumption that the membership already knows the basic facts about Gwen Stacy's death, and avoiding spoilers regarding these facts in any discussion would just be a tiresome and pointless exercise.

Like a lot of things, whether or not something is appropriate depends on the context the discussion is taking place in. While I think it's common internet etiquette to minimize spoiling the endings in films/literary works, I don't think it's some sort of responsibility that applies to the internet user either, especially if these works have been out in public for a good long while.