Are many of you going to "spoil" yourselves next week?
- Thread starter themadhatter
- Start date
This. One million times this.
Never really understood why people are so concerned, one way or another, with spoilers. Perhaps I don't understand this because I am a voracious reader, and the vast bulk of films I'm interested in are based on books which I've been sufficiently interested in, that I've already read them.
If I wasn't interested enough in a story to read the book, why the hell would I be interested in a screen adaptation of said book?
I am pretty much accustomed to seeing films where I know most all the major plot points and twists, well in advance of going to the theatre.
Having foreknowledge of what's going to happen in a film has rarely, if ever, "spoiled" the film-going experience for me. (If that weren't the case, I'd likely never again see any movie that was based on a historical event.)
If I wasn't interested enough in a story to read the book, why the hell would I be interested in a screen adaptation of said book?
I am pretty much accustomed to seeing films where I know most all the major plot points and twists, well in advance of going to the theatre.
Having foreknowledge of what's going to happen in a film has rarely, if ever, "spoiled" the film-going experience for me. (If that weren't the case, I'd likely never again see any movie that was based on a historical event.)
It was bad writing that made Reliant a threat. Kirk was required to ignore every regulation in the book in order for Reliant to get close enough to the Enterprise with its shields still down.
But The Wrath of Khan is still a great movie.
Screen adaptations are never a carbon copy of the books upon which they are based. There are always differences that may, or may not, be interesting in and of themselves and would be more effective the first time without any foreknowledge of them. An original screenplay should offer many more such moments.
I don't mind a few hints about a film or book and I won't avoid seeing a film or reading a book if it's been "spoiled". However, whenever possible, I prefer a first-time reading or viewing or listening experience to be uncluttered with too much advance knowledge. There can only be one "first-time experience" and I prefer not to have it "spoiled".
Subsequent viewings, readings and listening sessions offer me a way to appreciate different aspects of a particular work (assuming it warrants subsequent visits) but I still want a fresh version the first time out.
The Sixth Sense, for example, is something I would probably have not enjoyed nearly as much as I did the first time I saw it if the "reveal" had been known to me beforehand. I enjoyed it a second time, but in large part, that was owing to watching my wife watching it for the first time and seeing her reactions to various elements of the film (as well as wondering if she would figure out the "reveal" ahead of time). I also was interested to see if there were any glaring errors that should have alerted me to the "reveal" the first time through--I found nothing in particular. I was able to spot the clues, being in on the reveal, but they were skillfully and subtly presented.
I don't begrudge anyone who wants to be spoiled for this movie (or any other) but there is merit in a first-time "unspoiled" experience that makes me resist major spoilers.
I don't mind a few hints about a film or book and I won't avoid seeing a film or reading a book if it's been "spoiled". However, whenever possible, I prefer a first-time reading or viewing or listening experience to be uncluttered with too much advance knowledge. There can only be one "first-time experience" and I prefer not to have it "spoiled".
Subsequent viewings, readings and listening sessions offer me a way to appreciate different aspects of a particular work (assuming it warrants subsequent visits) but I still want a fresh version the first time out.
The Sixth Sense, for example, is something I would probably have not enjoyed nearly as much as I did the first time I saw it if the "reveal" had been known to me beforehand. I enjoyed it a second time, but in large part, that was owing to watching my wife watching it for the first time and seeing her reactions to various elements of the film (as well as wondering if she would figure out the "reveal" ahead of time). I also was interested to see if there were any glaring errors that should have alerted me to the "reveal" the first time through--I found nothing in particular. I was able to spot the clues, being in on the reveal, but they were skillfully and subtly presented.
I don't begrudge anyone who wants to be spoiled for this movie (or any other) but there is merit in a first-time "unspoiled" experience that makes me resist major spoilers.
I've grown a bit cold on the movie based the advertising campaign so my strategy is to read the spoilers tonight/tomorrow, let it soak in and hopefully by the time I see it on the 15th I'll sort of just accepted it all and just let myself enjoy the spectacle of it by that point.
For the record, it's now 10:46 am on April 23rd in Sidney Australia. I guess some of you won't be visiting this site tomorrow, especially since spoilers will probably start trickling in, oh about the time for my morning commute (central time).
There was only one major spoiler I had to know, now I do and while I am disappointed, 
it's not a deal breaker.
it's not a deal breaker.
Welcome!
I have had as many spoilers as I can take. If I read the 28-minute thread and came away wishing I hadn't read it. I've told this story in here before, but I enjoyed Insurrection because I knew very little about the story. Just that it was "fountain of youth." Contrast that to Star Trek (2009), where I knew Vulcan was destroyed, and it ruined the lead-up. As soon as they said "emergency on Vulcan," I knew how it would end. I wasn't captivated by it at all. I have a framework, what I call it, created by the spoilers, expectations, for how this movie will turn out. And they will play into or against those things. I have learned my lesson. After I see this movie, before the next one, you will not see me in here clicking and responding to threads. I want it to remain a secret. I will see the teaser trailer and that's all. I don't want breakdowns telling me
The Klingon birds of prey are in it, or that Kirk commits a violation of the Prime Directive to save Spock, etc
I was going to try and stay as pure as possible, even quit coming here but a couple of friends thought it was necessary to text me spoilers after the Sydney premiere. After that I also read some things online.
So I still don't know many details but I do know stuff.
So I still don't know many details but I do know stuff.
I guess the only thing I want to know is the true identity of Cumberbatch's character. Because if it's the obvious character that shall not be named, then I want to know that going in, so I'm not waiting for them to do the reveal instead of enjoying the build up.
If it's something out of left field, then I want to go in cold.
Anyone care to help me out?
If it's something out of left field, then I want to go in cold.
Anyone care to help me out?
I am curious. For this movie, did they
change Khan's backstory to explain why the rather impressive looking Sikh warrior now looks like a decidely non-exotic dude?
^I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that. Someone with more spoiler knowledge will have to help.
Similar threads
