Reply to Topic
I think the SPOILER WARNING is one of the sillier things to spring up due to the internet. Because there is such a wide variety of folks surfing, whenever the topic of movies invariably arises - even on boards not specifically devoted to discussing films, and partially because of the immediacy of the internet, people are in risk of having major plot-points of brand new movies revealed, sometimes even before the film is released. Hey, that ain't cool. Unless you're looking for it, one shouldn't accidentally be exposed to such "spoilers" (especially as even the biggest films usually have different, staggered release dates all over the world). I'm all for that. That just seems like common courtesy to me.
BUT, I also think there is a reasonable time-limit on such protection. I say after about a year or so after a film has been released, all discussion about it - including plot specifics, is fair game. The year cushion gives anybody who was really and truly interested in it ample time to catch it, if not in the theaters or even video then perhaps on cable TV. To still be tip-toeing around a movie like, say, Fight Club at this point is retarded to me. I'm sure there are lots of people who haven't seen Fight Club yet, for whatever reasons, but by now the rest of the world - even the internet world, can't be asked to walk around protecting its 'secrets' as if anybody who hasn't seen it themselves yet is a five-year-old who believes in Santa. If on movie boards in particular you can't speak pretty freely about movies, then what's the frippin' point?
This is especially stupid when a movie turns into fodder for pop culture. If "The Simpsons" and "Saturday Night Live" and Mad Magazine and whatever else are quickly using plot points from a film for parody, guess what: the bubble burst on your supposed right to have it remain secret real fast.
Where this gets totally silly for me is when we're not even talking about a movie that is two or three or five years old, but something that is twenty or thirty or sixty years old. If you don't know yet that Rosebud was Chuck Foster Kane's boyhood sled, then that's just your own problem. Do you apply this same overprotection to literature? If you overhear two people talking about a book you haven't read, like The Adventures of Tom Sawyer or Catcher in the Rye, do you plug up your ears running from the room, berating those people for "spoiling" it for you? If you haven't read them yet, the rest of the world shouldn't be expected to bend over backwards to make sure your experience with them is virgin.
The same very much applies to movies. Just because you might not have seen a movie does not mean the rest of the world is prohibited from talking about it - unless, as I said above, it is truly brand-new. There should be no spoiler warning automatically attached to flicks like Psycho, Chinatown, The Wizard of Oz or any other movie, for that matter. Now, if you have explicitly started a thread that asks for spoiler-free opinions or is giving a more general review, that's one thing. But if you're on a board that talks about movies and you wander into a thread about any "older" movie you haven't yet seen, it's implicitly an enter at your own risk proposition, yeah? Because if there are board members in there who are actually discussing it, and they're (hopefully) going into more detail than 'it sucked/it rocked', of course they are going to be revealing specifics.
And importantly, I think having plot details - even a twist - revealed before you see a movie does not automatically detract from the viewing experience, anyway. A great movie is a great movie. Knowing a key plot point of a great movie before you see it makes it no less great. But, if you feel it really does detract, then it's really your responsibility to be careful, not everybody else on the wide, wide world of the internet who has actually seen the movie in question. That doesn't mean I'd be callous or cavalier about revealing plot points and specifics randomly, but if you go into a thread that seems like perhaps there is going to be involved discussion about specifics, then simply don't venture in there. That seems pretty simple to me.
It all seems pretty simple, and like common sense. Expecting the entire world to keep The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Citizen Kane State secrets on the off-chance that you might have it spoiled for you is counterintuitive and silly.
I think, anyway.
<END RANT NOW>
BUT, I also think there is a reasonable time-limit on such protection. I say after about a year or so after a film has been released, all discussion about it - including plot specifics, is fair game. The year cushion gives anybody who was really and truly interested in it ample time to catch it, if not in the theaters or even video then perhaps on cable TV. To still be tip-toeing around a movie like, say, Fight Club at this point is retarded to me. I'm sure there are lots of people who haven't seen Fight Club yet, for whatever reasons, but by now the rest of the world - even the internet world, can't be asked to walk around protecting its 'secrets' as if anybody who hasn't seen it themselves yet is a five-year-old who believes in Santa. If on movie boards in particular you can't speak pretty freely about movies, then what's the frippin' point?
This is especially stupid when a movie turns into fodder for pop culture. If "The Simpsons" and "Saturday Night Live" and Mad Magazine and whatever else are quickly using plot points from a film for parody, guess what: the bubble burst on your supposed right to have it remain secret real fast.
Where this gets totally silly for me is when we're not even talking about a movie that is two or three or five years old, but something that is twenty or thirty or sixty years old. If you don't know yet that Rosebud was Chuck Foster Kane's boyhood sled, then that's just your own problem. Do you apply this same overprotection to literature? If you overhear two people talking about a book you haven't read, like The Adventures of Tom Sawyer or Catcher in the Rye, do you plug up your ears running from the room, berating those people for "spoiling" it for you? If you haven't read them yet, the rest of the world shouldn't be expected to bend over backwards to make sure your experience with them is virgin.
The same very much applies to movies. Just because you might not have seen a movie does not mean the rest of the world is prohibited from talking about it - unless, as I said above, it is truly brand-new. There should be no spoiler warning automatically attached to flicks like Psycho, Chinatown, The Wizard of Oz or any other movie, for that matter. Now, if you have explicitly started a thread that asks for spoiler-free opinions or is giving a more general review, that's one thing. But if you're on a board that talks about movies and you wander into a thread about any "older" movie you haven't yet seen, it's implicitly an enter at your own risk proposition, yeah? Because if there are board members in there who are actually discussing it, and they're (hopefully) going into more detail than 'it sucked/it rocked', of course they are going to be revealing specifics.
And importantly, I think having plot details - even a twist - revealed before you see a movie does not automatically detract from the viewing experience, anyway. A great movie is a great movie. Knowing a key plot point of a great movie before you see it makes it no less great. But, if you feel it really does detract, then it's really your responsibility to be careful, not everybody else on the wide, wide world of the internet who has actually seen the movie in question. That doesn't mean I'd be callous or cavalier about revealing plot points and specifics randomly, but if you go into a thread that seems like perhaps there is going to be involved discussion about specifics, then simply don't venture in there. That seems pretty simple to me.
It all seems pretty simple, and like common sense. Expecting the entire world to keep The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Citizen Kane State secrets on the off-chance that you might have it spoiled for you is counterintuitive and silly.
I think, anyway.
<END RANT NOW>
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra
)
