MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Spoilers

It has been suggested to be that spoilers be a specific topic about one particular hack out there… but I don’t want to single anyone out and I do think it is a bigger question.
What do you do when a critic you like endlessly spoils movies?
Do you avoid some outlets because you expect spoilers?
Are spoiler warnings effective anymore… and how best can we in the media do them?
Who are the worst offenders?
And do the studios spoil more with ads than critics do with reviews?

Be Sociable, Share!

33 Responses to “Spoilers”

  1. Goulet says:

    Jeff Wells often randomly drops third act plot points not only in his reviews, but in little blog blurbs. Personally, I don’t mind too much, because I find that a good movie will work no matter how much you know in advance. Like, I’d read the V FOR VENDETTA comics before and I was still on the edge of my seat throughout.

  2. jeffmcm says:

    There are plenty of critics who consider themselves above the movies they write about and so don’t care if they provide spoilers; I’m thinking of Anthony Lane or various highbrow New York writers (Lane is not highbrow).
    I just don’t bother reading reviews anymore until after I’ve seen the movie.
    I’m a little disappointed that I had seen a certain climactic plot event from V for Vendetta in stills on MCN back when Dave P. had his set visit.

  3. PetalumaFilms says:

    I just avoid ALL “reviews” of movies before they come out. Both to avoid spoilers and to avoid changing or coloring my opinion of them before seeing them. It’s tough to do when you circle movie sites all day.

  4. Telemachos says:

    I read a lot of reviews generally — but I’ll scan very quickly to see if there’s anything approaching a summary or plot spoiler, and I’ll skip those specific paragraphs. Generally speaking, I’m able to avoid anyone who’s spoilerific. Jeff Wells and his ilk are a bit harder, because they’ll tend to throw away spoilers within an unrelated post, so I’m a bit warier about reading any ‘net columnists or bloggers before I see something.
    Trailers and TV spots are more annoying but also easier to avoid. They tend not to be specific in terms of spoilers, but it’s all too easy to read between the lines or shots to get the gist of it.

  5. THX5334 says:

    Jeff Wells seems to be a name that keeps popping up. I have a particular problem with him especially.
    “Jeff Wells and his ilk are a bit harder, because they’ll tend to throw away spoilers within an unrelated post.”
    I couldn’t have said it better myself, Telemachos. It’s almost as if he’s trying to rub it in your face that he’s already seen the movie. He drops spoilers in his columns like turds in the fertalizer, and there is never any warning.
    Is there another entertainment journalist out there that just reads and feels like they come from the most insecure, fearful, narcisstic place?
    The way he constantly spoils movies and the way he endlessly writes in the most judgemental way about the physical attractiveness of this or that actor or people in general. It reads like he is so shallow about others because he just feels so ugly about himself. And you get what you project right?
    Yes Wells, I hope you’re reading.

  6. PetalumaFilms says:

    In regards to ads spoiling movies….
    That new X-3 ad TOTALLY gives away things (important things) about X-3 but I honestly think they’re just trying to destroy that franchise. They totally show who dies in the new trailer! Lame asses.

  7. Josh Massey says:

    Wells and I have thrown a few e-mails back and forth over the past week, because I feel he spoiled a plot point from an upcoming “Sopranos” episode – even though he professed multiple times he wasn’t revealing anything. His response was basically, “Well, you should have known that was going to happen!” I said that even if the “spoiler” seems obvious, the even-slight mystery should be left to the viewer.
    I think THX is right. Wells and a few others out there (AICN, I’m looking at you) spoil things as a way of feeling superior. It’s the whole “I’ve seen this and you haven’t, nyah-nyah!” mentality. Hell, Wells even posted a picture of his “Sopranos” 4-episode DVD the day it came in the mail.
    That level of personal insecurity seems awfully pathetic.

  8. Lynn says:

    There are a lot of trailers that give away far, far too much about the movie. To the extent that I already feel that I’ve seen the movie. Disney and related companies seems to be one of the worst offenders.
    This isn’t the typical example, but I’ll never understand why the geniuses marketing The Island decided to give away the secret about the island rather than letting viewers discover it at the same time the main character did. That might have been a cool reveal, but I’ll never know, because I was completely spoiled by the trailers and publicity stuff.

  9. prideray says:

    I find myself erring on the other side as a reviewer… often making a review a little less spritely or illuminating because synopsis can so wreck pleasures small and large.

  10. James Leer says:

    Ah ha, so you’re the one, Josh.
    Agreed on Wells. I started reading his “Inside Man” piece and then stopped, because he began to discuss how twisty it was and despite the discretion he pledged to use, I KNOW he’s going to hint at shit just to prove he can.
    There were a lot of marketing problems with “The Island,” but I’m not sure they could’ve gotten around that one, Lynn — wouldn’t they have had to only show non-action scenes from the first part of the movie?

  11. Lota says:

    “wouldn’t they have had to only show non-action scenes from the first part of the movie?”
    Hell yeah. that would have been ok.
    better to have had some mystery instead of looking like a Bay movie with no surprise.

  12. Josh Massey says:

    Yeah, I’m the one – funny Wells only pulled a couple of my more profane (and admittedly sophomoric) quotes, yet has failed to publicly mention what I feel are my more solid points…
    Anyway, I just think critics in general should keep their plot synopses to the first 30 minutes of every movie. Sure, there can be an exception here and there, but I don’t see the value of discussing a minute-90 development.

  13. Nicol D says:

    I subscribe to the view that ‘how’ and ‘why’ a movie is about what it is about is much more important than ‘what’ it is about.
    As such I have no problem with spoilers whatsoever.
    In fact, there are very few films I attend now without knowing exactly what is going to occur in them.
    If a film is really good, it will be able to stand up…if all it has going for it is a ‘twist’ than that is not enough.
    After all, that is what makes you want to keep watching it again if it is very good…not the ‘what’s’ but the ‘how’s’.
    The overall style, mood and ambiance are more important to me than plot points.

  14. Telemachos says:

    Plot points aren’t necessarily of primary importance, but seeing the unexpected isn’t a negative either. I’m not thinking about “twist” films, really; but if a genre movie moves in an unexpected direction, or actually does something clever, I’d rather not know going in and be pleasantly surprised.
    Seeing a well-told story reduced to a series of bulleted spoiler points or a flat one-line summation detracts from the first viewing.
    Example: I kept away from any comments about the Battlestar: Galactica season ender until I saw it…. so I got the full “wow, wtf” effect. Reading the spoilers wouldn’t make the episode (or the series) poorly written or uninteresting, but they would’ve tarnished that first viewing.
    On a semi-related note, I find it VERY involving when a story tells you where it’s going early on… and then the fun is seeing HOW the end result happens (Babylon 5 being but one example of this).

  15. waterbucket says:

    No, no spoiler. I hate spoilers. I can’t stand watching something when I already know what’s going to happen.
    Maybe that’s why I rarely see a movie twice except ones that I love like Brokeback or a mindless but entertaining movie like Spiderman 2.

  16. jeffmcm says:

    Spider-Man 2 is better than ‘mindless’. Let’s reserve that word for the likes of Michael Bay and Rob Cohen.
    I agree that plot is kind of overrated a reason to watch a movie, but you can’t deny the pleasure of watching a narrative unfold for the very first time.

  17. Lynn says:

    “Example: I kept away from any comments about the Battlestar: Galactica season ender until I saw it…. so I got the full “wow, wtf” effect.”
    OMG WTF indeed. I’m trying to remember the last time I saw a better season finale, and I got nothin’.
    Anyone who liked V for Vendetta and isn’t already watching Battlestar Galactica really should be.

  18. grandcosmo says:

    The really great film reviewers (Sarris, Agee, Lopate, etc) were able to discuss films intelligently without even providing a plot synopsis.

  19. Crow T Robot says:

    I would never read a review by Andrew Sarris of a film I planned on viewing.
    And I love Andrew Sarris.

  20. waterbucket says:

    If anybody reveals anywhere in this blog what happened in Battlestar will have to suffer my wrath. I’m still catching up on this amazing series so please don’t talk about it.

  21. RoyBatty says:

    I stopped reading full reviews years ago, only doing so after I’ve seen the film. Unless it’s an obvious turkey.
    As with most people who read this and most film sites, when it comes to the “major” releases (both inescapble studio films and high profile indies) I know that I will see them in one form or another eventually. For awhile I wrote reviews for an independent newspaper and before that for imdb.com, so I didn’t want undue influence.
    But even barring that, I have found that most reviews simply give too much away for me. The critic has forgotten that he or she is writing something to help guide the reader in their movie-going choices and instead seems to be trying to impress their cinema studies prof (ie, the difference between a review and actual film criticism). My solution is simply to read the first couple of paragraphs and the last.
    I don’t want to know what happpens; Or have a great line revealed; Or even have a cameo spoiled (like when someone let it slip who plays Richard the Lionheart in the Costner ROBIN HOOD). When writing reviews myself, I used what I called “the bullet & the bottom line” approach: the first paragraph gave the reader a succinct discription of the film (the bullet) and then a summation of of whether it was worthy of the reader’s time, money and effort to troop down to the theater to see it. After that followed the expanded review, but one that never talked about events past the first act and kept all other information as general as possible.
    The best experiences I’ve watching films have almost always come from seeing films that I knew the least about. The films that have the biggest impact on the zietgiest in general seem to be those that have caught the audience unawares either by being “sleepers” with no advance word or having an honest “twist” ending.
    I suspect those who like to go into films knowing the plot and twists are folks with some control issues.

  22. jesse says:

    When I write reviews, I go the other way and probably include, if anything, too little plot/story information. I write under the assumption that (the few) people reading it will have seen trailers/commercials/etc., and that the ads have done all the giving away necessary, and then some. I’ve grown to especially love writing capsules, because with a 50-or-60-word limit, you can’t put more than a fraction of plot-summary in there anyway. It really helps hone your criticism, trying to summarize your feelings on a movie in under 100 words.
    Anyway, when I do have to add more plot summary, I keep it to bare-bones, Leonard-Maltin’s-Movie-Guide level of summary (even in a longer review). I feel like you can still have specific details about great moments or shots or performances or whatever without being *so* specific that you’re ruining the movie.
    I find that Ebert is fairly spoiler-sensitive, as are the Entertainment Weekly people (even though I don’t much care for their actual writing). So sometimes I read those reviews before I see the film. And some films, knowing doesn’t really matter. But I try to stay at least somewhat fresh if opssible.

  23. pstargalac says:

    Word of warning, Bucket… the Sci-Fi channel is not spoiler-proof. My brother’s a huge Battlestar fan, and he apparently had the finale spoiled for him by Sci-Fi ads for upcoming episodes. I don’t know what the exact deal was, but he said it basically destroyed everything.
    Speaks to the issue at hand… how long should Sci-Fi have waited before advertising one of their biggest successes? How secretive could they have been while still getting people pumped for new episodes?
    It’s not really in the networks’ interest to cater to folks who haven’t seen the show yet… in fact, as a general rule, it’s probably in their best interest to actively spoil things for people. If people get burned repeatedly by spoilers, the only way to avoid it in the future will be to obediently tune in when the show airs.
    As TV becomes more extended in its story arcs, this will become an even bigger problem than it already is.

  24. Telemachos says:

    Re: BSG — ironically, every episode has a post-title 30-sec blitz-edit that shows flashes of the episode you’re about to see. I try to avoid those. I’m not sure how exactly the Sci-Fi Channel spots ruined any episodes, but the TiVo ep description on the finale definitely had a spoiler (though not the biggest one of the episode).

  25. Lynn says:

    waterbucket, I promise not to spoil, but I’ll talk about BSG at every opportunity. It makes me sad that a lot of people won’t even consider watching this show because of the name and the fact that it’s sci-fi and, well, on Sci-Fi.
    Both EJO and Mary McDonnell — and possibly James Callis — would seriously be in the running for Emmy noms this year if they’d given the same level of performance on any other show. The TV academy is just as snobbish as the film about such things.

  26. THX5334 says:

    I am also a big fan of BSG. I have a friend who has modded his X-Box to run feeds from his comp straight to his HDTV. He’ll download the eastcoast feed (or if it’s a show that’s already aired overseas) and watch it before normal broadcast. Mainly just to avoid the spoliage potential. It’s amazing how he’s turned his X-Box into a media center.
    Also, I have to say, I am a big fan of BSG’s precredit sequence. I feel it doesn’t spoil the episode and is just enough to wet the appetitie.

  27. waterbucket says:

    Same goes for Veronica Mars. Battlestar and Veronica are so good with intricate storylines being resolved in a timely and satisfying manner, unlike another show that shall not be named.
    I think I’m fated to like only shows that have no audience and are on a constant brink of cancellation. At least my Sydney Bristow will get to go out with a bang.

  28. palmtree says:

    I’m of the opinion that reviews really only need one sentence of plot. Basically saying who the characters are, what the setting is, and what the conflict is. However, within the review, allusions to various aspects of the film can and should be made, but mostly with respect to an actor’s performance, art direction, music, cinematography, etc. I hate reviews that think giving you a detailed cheeky synopsis is somehow a critical necessity.
    I don’t really care much about spoilers though unless it spoils something I really cared about. For example, when someone spoiled a murder that takes place in the first ep of this season’s 24, I went ballistic. And rightly so, the effect was dulled. But some spoilers, like the end of the first season of 24, still had emotional impact because it wasn’t shock value but rather the culmination of 24 episodes of drama. If you can’t tell, my favorite show is 24.

  29. Crow T Robot says:

    24 has become so vicious this season (and that’s saying a lot). I’m eating it up. And how great of the program this season to enlist some of the best actors of the 1980s (Jo Beth Williams, Peter Weller, Sean Astin, Jean Smart, Julian Sands, C. Thomas Howell). All we need now is Molly Ringwald.
    Personally I think they should have Keifer die at the end of this season… and as he takes his last few breaths pan down and push in to the digital watch on his arm counting to the last few seconds of the day… but instead of the patented tick/tock we hear his fading heartbeat.
    Yeah, yeah, I’m a geek, fuck you too.

  30. Aladdin Sane says:

    Man oh man, I love me some BSG. I had bought the first season a week and a half ago…finished it in a few days, while downloading all of the second season…which I finished watching Sunday night. All I’ll say is:
    “Oh my fracking gods!”
    I’m a huge Deadwood fan, and this for me is on par with that. It’s sorta like comparing apples & oranges, but whatev.
    I agree about EJO and Mary McDonnell when it comes to Emmys. They should be nominated for their phenomenal work on the second season. I can’t wait to see where they take this show in the third. It’s nice to see a sci-fi show that isn’t taking its audience for granted (I’m talking to you Rick Berman!). They’re working hard to give the audience something that they can relate to while still being amazed. And I like the little teaser in the credits. I think it’s a great idea.
    When the third season starts, I’ll continue to get the episodes via torrents…and like Lost, I stay away from forums etc that deal with the show. I’d rather be surprised (for the most part).
    And am I the only one that thinks 24, while still watchable, isn’t as good as the previous seasons?

  31. palmtree says:

    Crow, those are great ideas. Without Jack, they could make this show completely without any baggage and could probably go outside of CTU. What about this…what if they made it the Chloe O’Brien show?

  32. Richard Nash says:

    This has been an exceptional year for 24. On par with any other year and as we find out more about the bad guys and what they are up to it’ll only get better and the stakes just get higher.
    Every hit show is accused of going off the rails by the fanboys. I don’t know what they want. You can’t get much more action packed than this year and the tension is thru the roof.
    Eventually, you will have a 24 in a new area and without Jack but I don’t want to think about that now. Kiefer Sutherland is doing some fantastic work right now and I hope he keeps it up.

  33. jeffmcm says:

    So should we assume that Richard Nash is your ‘real’ name and the only one you’re going to use from now on?
    Just asking.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon