Worst Spoiler Experience?

[Candlelight]

Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.

I was not a fan of fantasy books. I didn't know anything about them at all. Until my brother excitedly pointed out a trailer for the Lord of the Rings I had never heard of it before. I had no idea that it was a very famous set of books.

Flash forward to the Fellowship of the Ring. My brother and I went to see it. He was a fan of the books and very very excited. We watched the film and I loved it. We were gushing over the film during the very cold walk back to the car when I said "It's too bad that wizard guy Gandalf died, I liked him." Without thinking he said "Don't worry, he comes back in the next one" He apologized right away because he realized that he spoiled a huge plot point for me. I was pretty pissed for a bit. Of course the trailer for the Two Towers gave that plot point away anyway so in the end it didn't matter.

I hadn't had any experience with LOTR until the movies were made.

My wife told me King Theoden karks it in the third film/book. I was angry she spoiled that.

But then she said it's not such a big spoiler anyway, cos how else would Aragorn become king?

My Reply: "ARAGORN BECOMES THE KING?!?"

 

[Brian]

 

[Gaith]

I only posted that because there seems to be a debate in this thread about how Jack might have survived...

Yes, and there's nothing in the first half of the film at least that suggests he didn't. That's what the debate was about.

 

[Greg Cox]

The spoiler thing also gets tricky where adaptations are involved, as in, say, TRUE BLOOD, VAMPIRE DIARIES, THE WALKING DEAD, BEING HUMAN, etc. There can sometimes be conflict between fans of the original, who want to compare it to the new version and talk about upcoming plot twists, and newbies who just want to watch the tv show on its own terms and don't want to hear in advance what happens in Book Four . . . .
I'm actually leery of WALKING DEAD and BEING HUMAN threads because people seem a little too eager to talk about what happens in the original versions . . . .

 

[Myasishchev]

It's weird. You'd think there'd be no such thing as spoilers for classic films, yet, in my experience, there are still plenty of people out there who don't know this stuff.

I saw PSYCHO in a theater several years ago, and I was stunned to realize that there were actually people in the audience who didn't already know that (SPOILER ALERT!) Norman was his own mother. They were genuinely shocked by the twist ending.

So I guess it's conceivable that there are still actually people who don't know about Kong and the Empire State Building . . . as hard as it is to believe!

After about five years or so, though, one should no longer have to take special precautions to avoid spoiling folks, just because they're culturally unaware. And people in the audience for van Sant's Psycho who weren't aware that it was a shot-for-shot remake of Hitchcock's probably fit that bill. (Or was it van Sant's? If it was the original, but being screened somewhere, who were these people who 1)wanted to go see a 50 year old black and white movie yet 2)were not already familiar with one of the most famous 50 year old B+W films there are?)

Now five years is what I think is about right, but there must be some sort of limit, otherwise you get absurd results, like screaming about spoilers whenever someone tells you

Spoiler: New Testament

Jesus died for your sins.

Believe it or not, it was a screening of the original b/w PSYCHO on a college campus. Maybe some clueless students just wanted to see a movie for cheap?

I've also heard (from a reliable source) that, at first, Universal didn't want the novelization of the KONG remake to "give away the ending". You know, the bit with the Empire State Building. Thankfully, someone convinced them that was not exactly a deep dark secret . . . .

I'm not sure what the statute of limitations on "classic" spoilers should be. Yeah, it's silly to have to keep quiet about PSYCHO or KING KONG after all these years. On the flip side, however, are those annoying people who see every movie on opening night, and read every new novel or comic book the instant it hits the stands, and assume that "everybody" does the same. "But . . . but the movie opened a week ago! Everybody knows the ending by now!"

Well, a good example--I think--is the difference between the two versions of Watchmen. Alan Moore's is past the point where you should take care not to reveal that Veidt is the killer, and plans on using a giant squid to destroy half New York. Zack Snyder's, on the other hand, I can see one still treading lightly.

Even then, I wonder if that should only apply to the differences. Should an adaptation again draw the veil? Would it have been douchetacular in 2008 to talk about Veidt's master plan, when it clearly wouldn't have been so in 2005?

 

[Brian]

I only posted that because there seems to be a debate in this thread about how Jack might have survived...

Yes, and there's nothing in the first half of the film at least that suggests he didn't. That's what the debate was about.

I see. Well, it seems they went out of their way to make it ambiguous whether he would live or die. If it had been obvious that she was reminiscing about the man she lost on the Titanic, that would have been the in-film spoiler. Which doesn't exist.

 

[Skellington]

^^
Off-topic question which I hope won't throw of the thread: Rosebud was the sled, or the woman; Kane's wife? (It's been awhile since I've seen the film).

It was the sled and (allegedly) a pet name that William Randolph Hearst used in relation to his mistress Marion Davies, on whom Kane's second wife Susan was based. Apparently the use of the word was what motivated Hearst to seek the destruction of all prints of the movie. I guess that it struck a nerve...