Gdrlv

Trying to think of an acceptable way to respond to this post without getting myself banned from this forum, but I can't do it. Not sure why my post offended you so badly or why you're treating me like I'm a raging asshole for being irritated that a movie that's only a year old was ruined for me before I could watch it...ruined on a national network television show, no less.

Jimmy James

I don't think anyone is treating anyone like a raging asshole here, but it is clear that there are some very strong opinions about the issue and some very strong opinions about the very strong opinions of others.

What I don't get is how this ruined the movie. I don't get that at all. Surely, you have seen films that you knew about going in. Didn't you enjoy them? Why are some people so worried about being spoiled?

Gdrlv

If my words above were harsh, I apologize. However, Mr. Salty's snide comment about Citizen Kane was unwarranted and unnecessary. He apparently came into this thread looking to pick a fight and was (I'm sure) quite pleased with himself over his oh-so-witty remark.

However, as he even admits in his post, Citizen Kane is nearly 70 years old and is firmly entrenched in pop culture, as are Star Wars and The Sixth Sense. Million Dollar Baby came out last year. And if anyone thinks that Million Dollar Baby is anywhere near as much a part of "pop culture" as these other movies, well, then they're delusional.

Also, while I may still watch the film, the spoiler seems to be a very major plot point and apparently quite the surprise when it occurs. Of course it's going to change how I watch and enjoy the movie. Did you see the movie? Would you have been happy going into it knowing how it ends?

Jimmy James

You may want to re-read the thread. Mr. Salty made that comment in response to an attack by another user, not to your original post. He did reference you, but I got the sense that he was using sarcasm to mock the attacker and not suggesting he really thought you would object to a CK spoiler.

I have not seen the film, but I can still answer the question. I'm perfectly happy knowing how the film ends. I found out about The Sixth Sense and The Usual Suspects prior to watching them, and it didn't impact my enjoyment. That's one reason why I'm asking the question -- I'd like to hear about your opposing point of view.

Mr. Salty

Yes, thank you Jimmy. That was exactly my point.

Count Dooku

That's kind of the point.
You had a whole year to watch it! and now you're all upset because it was "spoiled" for you.
Well, you should have seen it in 2005 like everybody else, for chrissakes.

Jimmy James

I think it needs to be said that as far as I'm concerned, the OP can choose to watch or not to watch Four Kings for any or no reason. I don't think the complaint is a particularly compelling one, but my involvement in the thread stems from the suggestion that absolutely nobody should discuss any detail of any entertainment product from any era without getting a 75 page release from anyone who might hear it.

lookslikeme

No "Poor Seth" about it, he's the biggest reason the show sucks. It wouldn't be great, but it would be a lot more watchable if he wasn't on it. Sure his character is supposed to be whiney and annoying, but he just takes it over the top in my opinion.

Sorry about spoiling Seth's character for anyone that's still on the fence.

DRG

There's a difference between "discussing any detail of any entertainment product" and blurting out THE major plot twist to something without warning. If I walk in on a conversation about a movie I haven't seen, I'll simply do my best to avoid listening. But if someone walks up to me and says "Will Smith dies at the end of Hitch!" or "The killer in Finding Nemo turns out to be Buzz Lightyear!" (not real spoilers ) before I have a chance to do anything, that's just uncalled for. I don't care how many months the movie has been out or how many chances I've had to see it. It shouldn't have to be a race to see every movie released within a year of its opening just so you can avoid pointless spoilers.

Jimmy James

I can accept that, but it wasn't the position of the person whose response got me involved.

I'd personally run away if I ever had that happen. It sounds like that person is crazy.

We have to balance that against entertainment, though. When a show set in New York involving a number of friends makes reference to something like a science fiction heroine by having one of the cast members dress up like the heroine, it increases our entertainment. There are some things that are assimilated into the lexicon of pop culture, and the spoiler at issue is one of them. When you choose to submit yourself to the whims of the people behind a new show or a movie, you run the risk that they're going to tap into that lexicon. I think everyone has a right to judge that by whatever standard they choose, including having no standard. I think we have to acknowledge that this isn't like the situation you mention above involving a loudmouth running about a park telling strangers that Austin Powers was really a figment of Dr. Evil's imagination.

ETA: Let's put it another way -- we know somebody was very upset about this. Do you doubt that there are people out there whose enjoyment was enhanced as a result of this choice?

ETA2: You only have to look to the thread about The Office from this week to see an example of a different sitcom spoiling a detail of another show to great praise from all involved around here.

DRG

[QUOTE=Jimmy James]We have to balance that against entertainment, though. When a show set in New York involving a number of friends makes reference to something like a science fiction heroine by having one of the cast members dress up like the heroine, it increases our entertainment. There are some things that are assimilated into the lexicon of pop culture, and the spoiler at issue is one of them. When you choose to submit yourself to the whims of the people behind a new show or a movie, you run the risk that they're going to tap into that lexicon. I think everyone has a right to judge that by whatever standard they choose, including having no standard. I think we have to acknowledge that this isn't like the situation you mention above involving a loudmouth running about a park telling strangers that Austin Powers was really a figment of Dr. Evil's imagination.[/spoiler]

That's all true. But by this logic it would also be okay to randomly spoil Brokeback Mountain or any other new movie, provided it provided SOMEONE entertainment.

But essentially the gag was the same thing, right?

Perhaps, although I'm guessing those people would enjoy just about anything.

Assuming you're referring to , to me that goes back to the "plot detail vs huge spoiler" thing I mentioned earlier. I don't consider that a huge twist that the entire work revolves around.

Jimmy James

I don't think it necessarily even hinges on whether it provided someone entertainment -- it hinges on whether the persons involved in creating the work had reason to believe that it might provide some entertainment.

I hate to tell you this, but there is a show on TV I'm aware of (and watch) that spoiled King Kong, Brokeback Mountain, and Memoirs of a Geisha. There isn't as much there to spoil, but it certainly happened. I agree that it's okay. Anyone who watches should be on notice from the past behavior of the show. Four Kings doesn't have that going for it in this case, but that's where the assumed risk comes in.

You mean the gag on the show? I couldn't say. I didn't watch the show. The scenario you mentioned doesn't fit the facts of the situation (where our OP sat down and intended to watch Four Kings).

It's funny you feel that way. The persons involved in that thread hesitated to even provide a spoilerized recap because they considered the information to be so damaging to the enjoyment of the show.

DonnachaOne

I appreciate your civility.
I agree that people just assume it's alright to spoil old films, and I tolerate it - but that's different from accepting it, nor should people who appreciate films allow it. Knowledge of old films isn't innate, and these days people attempt to get into the classics, as opposed to growing up with them. Telling someone what happens in the film removes a level of enjoyment that they won't be able to gain. This goes for old films and the newer ones.

I'm sure it isn't; after all, you go on to use rape and murder as tools for your argument.

By the same token, he didn't ask to have [b]Million Dollar Baby[/b spoiled.

I understand the difference between facts and opinion, Jimmy. I stand by my statement, which you could not disprove.

Jimmy James

I don't use them as tools at all. I offered a reality check on your extreme hyperbole.

I have no problem with him choosing to hold that against the show. I do have a problem with things said in this thread after the OP finished.

No, you apparently do not understand the difference between facts and opinion. Your "factual" statement was, "[s]poiling films is a deplorable action, and people who defend such idiocy need to have less contempt for other humans."

You have the burden all wrong. It is your burden to demonstrate that they are facts, not my burden to establish that they are opinions. Here is the definition of opinion. You'll see the burden within the very definition of opinion:

"A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof"

kaze0

Wow, I can't belive it wasn't spoiled for you until now. The New York Times ran an article with a spoiler for MDB in the headline. Then USA Today ran an article criticizing the NY Times for spoiling in the headline. That was like a month after the movie was in theaters. Still an entertaining movie go watch it.

WallyOPD

You might want to edit your original post to say something like "major MDB spoiler below." I haven't seen MDB yet either and didn't realize that was what was in your spoilerized text.

ShallowHal

I haven't seen MDB and I didn't care. I almost thought it was a joke, but it wouldn't stop me from seeing the movie.. which I won't.

Gizmo

Thanks for spoiling MDB for me as well. Next you're going to tell me Bambi's mom dies!

Count Dooku

How is seeing a movie within a year of it's release "a race"?

Jimmy James

If somebody actually expects to never be spoiled about a single movie, that would mean they'd have to see every movie released. Seeing any one film within a year of its release is no challenge, but seeing all films within a year of release would be a monumental one.

Count Dooku

But there's just a couple films released each year containing plot twists that people are urged to keep a secret so as not to spoil it for others.

And that those films --like Million Dollar Baby, The Sixth Sense, The Crying Game-- have A BIG SECRET is publicized endlessly.

So my feeling is: When such a film comes along, and you want to have "the pure viewing experience"... Get your ass into the theater.

RocShemp

Funny thing is that, until the OP's spoilerized text, I didn't know anything about that film other than it was about a girl that wanted Clint Eastwood to train her as a boxer. Oh well, if I hadn't bothered to see the film already, I probably never will.

littlefuzzy

Of course, those two criteria are the sole way to judge whether someone will like a film...

zebop

Well I think if you haven't seen it, you would be upset at the ending disclosed on an ass shatty show like "Four Kings." Frankly I've never heard of anything like this before, a year isn't 5 or 10...

Isn't "Four Kings" over anyway? It's a horrendous show...

PopcornTreeCt

I can't believe this person is so upset. Movies are a visual medium. It's more than just the plot.



Have fun with that one whiners.