Just wanted to make sure you’d all read Ken Tucker’s essay on why, as a critic, he thinks it’s within his rights to reveal crucial plot points: "Whether I’m writing a review or reading one, I don’t want anyheld-back information to prevent that review from being the mostinteresting, thought-provoking one possible," he says. "If that means a movie critic reveals a crucial plot point in order tolay out an argument for a film’s greatness or its hideousness, so be it. As a TV critic, I am going to tell you who got killed on, say, lastnight’s 24, because an event like that immediately becomes part of thepop culture conversation — you bouncing your opinion off mine, critic andreader relishing the opportunity to speculate together on what thismeans for a show we care about."
I think we can all agree on that, right? A critic has a job to do, and the reader can choose whether to read the review, just look at the letter grade, or live in a bubble. What I find more interesting/debate-worthy is what Ken says at the end of his essay: "I admit that if someone tells me who won The Amazing Racebefore I’veseen it, I may gnash my teeth a little. But chances are, it will make mewant to see how those people scored their victories and how theproducers edited the game even more.Knowing the way something turns out shouldn’t ruin anyone’s pleasure."
Knowing the way something turns out shouldn’t ruin anyone’s pleasure. What do you think? For me, it depends. I can see enjoying The Bachelor just as much if I already knew which woman he picked, because it’d be fun to study their chemistry and the way the show was edited. But then I think of something like the Angel Season 4 episode "Awakening." Someone told me about the twist before I finally caught it in repeats (five years after it originally aired), and while my pleasure wasn’t anywhere near "ruined," it was definitely altered. I still appreciated the show’s ability to hurt so good, but my emotions weren’t the roller coaster they should have been. They were more like a Tilt-A-Whirl.
Shouldn’t ruin anyone’s pleasure, huh? Tell that to the folks who heard beforehand about the twists in “The Crying Game” or “The Sixth Sense.” If a the oopmh of a movie (or book or TV show) hinges on a single plot twist, critics shouldn’t ruin it by giving out spoilers upfront. This is exactly why I’m not reading any reviews of SATC right now – because I haven’t seen it yet and want to be at least somewhat surprised.
I enjoy spoilers because I’m impatient. They usually don’t stop me from viewing the movie/TV show though. I’m that way with books too. In order to make myself stop reading and go to bed, I skim the last chapter. Then I can take my time finishing the book.
I can’t agree– in a lot of entertainment, part of the enjoyment is derived from the tension built up by the viewer (reader/listener/whatever) not knowing what is going to happen next, and the way the creator(s) exploit that tension. And yes, I think this applies to low culture as well as high– to use his example there would be no thrill at the end of each episode of “The Amazing Race” if I knew who was going before they even began the heavily-edited rush to the finish line, and I’m still mad at my dad for telling me who did it in “The Maltese Falcon” the day before I went to see it.
(cont. above)
(cont. from below)
Also, I think Mr. Tucker is confusing reviewing and Criticism. If you were, say, writing an article on the Batman movies as a reflection of society’s changing attitudes on justice and vigilantism, then yes, you absolutely have the right to use any material from the plots that you find relevant. But if you’re writing a review of the new movie to help people decided if they want to see it, then I think, if nothing else, it is a show of respect to the filmmakers to let them decide how much the audience should know, and when. (The only exception I would put on this would be if something was grossly misleading or had some major cop-out, in a way that detracted from the enjoyment of the work, i.e. “It was all a dream!”)
If a spoiler MUST be revealed, (I think it should be avoided if possible), then a clear indication that a spoiler is forthcoming should be noted. EW’s been good about it and I will skip a few paragraphs in an article. But not in the headline and not without warning. Another analogy: taping a sporting event to watch it, then finding out the score first from someone. You will not give it the same attention you would live or not knowing what happened when you watch it.
…and how many times have you heard that the trailer of a movie gives too much away? Same difference.
Only problem, if you spoiler something the next day. It spoils those who taped something, and hasn’t seen it yet. Now if you’re talking about a plot twist in a movie that was released six years ago. Fine. Chances are everyone who has a vested interested has either not seen it by choice or has seen it. But if you tell me someone big died in a show the following day, and I was out that evening and have to watch the next day. You spoiled my enjoyment. So it’s a catch 22. Some shows fine. Reality shows sure. But not episodic television, unless it was weeks ago.
Part of the greatness of a thought provoking show or movie is being surprised by what happens. I love when excellent writing keeps me intrigued. When I accidentally found out about the 4 cylons on BSG, it was definitely not as fun to go back and watch the episode when they were revealed.
I agree with daisyj: It’s one thing to write a review/analysis of a film that came out a while ago, or even a tv show that aired the night before – but it’s another thing to spoil a movie before it’s even been released. That really irritates me, and EW in particular is notorious for writing spoilerific reviews of movies before they are released. It’s for this reason that I will only look at the quick one sentence blurbs on RottenTomatoes when I want to look at movie reviews. Please, critics: I just want to know whether or not you thought it was good – please don’t spoil huge plot points for me, especially if it’s a new movie that I might not have seen yet, because that always ruins it for me.
When did it become every critic’s right to decide to spoil a movie or tv show? In the last 2 weeks, I’ve seen every plot point for the SATC movie given away, and that’s before the movie had even been in general release. How is that at all acceptable? Is it just critics/reviewers enjoying that they get to see it before everyone else? Because I have to point out something that I consider very pertinent: a review isn’t just one big synopsis of the movie; it’s intended to be a critique of how the elements of a movie contribute to the whole product and it’s quality. And what I’d really like to say is: Ken Tucker, shut your big fat trap. I’ll be avoiding your reviews from now on.
For many TV shows, I search out spoilers, reading SpoilerFix and columns like Ausiello’s and Watch with Kristin, but I know that many others don’t want to know, so I keep that knowledge to myself in conversations with friends. Spoilers shouldn’t be in magazine articles; spoilers should be hard to find and require choice. I avoid many movie reviews if I don’t want to be spoiled (I still haven’t read EW’s review of SATC cause I haven’t seen it yet) cause I know its hard to avoid sharing plot points in a review. I think magazine’s like EW need to be careful and give “spoiler alerts” to warn readers more often. I personally enjoy the insider knowledge, but I also like to choose which shows and movies I remain unspoiled for. Its ironic that this discussion is happening now on EW, since you just hired the king of spoilers, Michael Ausiello.
I couldn’t agree more with Ken Tucker on this point if I tried. I know how classic movies and how Shakespeare’s plays are going to end – that doesn’t affect my enjoyment one whit. I honestly have to roll my eyes when people act like finding out that somebody on a tv show is going to die, kiss, or stab someone else in the back is the end of the world. It’s not just about what happens, it’s how it happens. The element of surprise is not necessary for my enjoyment, it never has been. I can get wrapped up in an elegantly plotted twist just as thoroughly if I know it’s coming, perhaps I can even appreciate it more when I’ve been spoiled.
Living in New Zealand, we always get shows after they air overseas, and in the case of The Amazing Race, almost always after they finish airing. I accidentally heard that BJ and Tyler won TAR9, and when I came to watch the show, I quickly realised that I hated those two. Words cannot describe how much I deplored every moment they were on screen. And watching them, knowing they would win, and seeing them come last TWICE at non-elimination points was torture.
The first example that comes to mind is Lost’s Season 3 finale – if I had known the twist beforehand, that the scenes taking place off the island were a flashforward, and not a flashback, I would have been intensely disappointed. Watching an episode ‘fresh’, not knowing anything about it gives you the opportunity to watch the episode twice, with different views each time. Once without being spoiled, and once knowing exactly what happens, looking for things you missed when you didn’t know what was happening. Spoiling an episode beforehand takes that first experience a way, and taints watching the show.
While I appreciate wanting to remain unspoiled (having done so for all four seasons of LOST), I think it’s ridiculous to expect critics to write non-spoilery reviews. As the anonymous commenter below me noted, reviews should be “a critique of how the elements of a movie contribute to the whole product and it’s quality”. Sorry, but that includes plot twists, character deaths, unexpected hook-ups and anything and everything else one could consider spoil-worthy. It bothers me when people complain about critics spoiling the outcome of film and TV – if you really don’t want to be spoiled, don’t read reviews. It’s not hard.