EPISODE 336: SPOILERS

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. andyluvsfilms says:

    A fine job fellas, I tip my hat to you

  2. Eric Maala says:

    If you want a great example of what doesn’t constitute a spoiler just look at the upcoming J.D. Salinger biopic The so called spoiler (the one that the Weinstein’s aggressively tried to cover up by forgetting to make the New York Times sign an NDA) is, like Amy Nicholson said about the Star Trek spoiler, a simple point of fact. The primary concern of the biopic probably isn’t the will-he-find-it search for Salinger’s unpublished works the same way Star Trek’s primary concern isn’t Kahn’s identity. But even if this does factor into the filmmaker’s story, the idea that the investigator in the doc strikes gold, I’m hard-pressed to find any film worth a damn that’s dependent on a single plot development.

    Now I highly doubt anyone other than the Weinsteins are complaining about the Salinger spoiler but its just another example of a quote-unquote spoiler cooked up by studios and filmmakers alike. Though I doubt J.J. Abrams was asking for anything more than a neat reveal I think the hostility toward Nichols revealing Khan’s identity points to the somewhat recent development: a reactionary response to spoilers that, even if entirely justified, puts more emphasis on the idea of seeing a movie than the movie itself.

    (Also, consider me a fan!)

  3. Seth H. says:

    If you two don’t follow through on the Tom Cruise episode with Amy, I swear I will stop listening.

    Okay, that may be a lie.

  4. Hudsucker says:

    Good episode as always. It’s nice to hear Amy again, and I’ve started listening to her pod!

  5. andyluvsfilms says:

    consider me more of an acquaintance or a well-wisher 😉

  6. RuffReader says:

    Aw, just when the conversation started getting good, it ends 🙁 I liked where the discussion was going on the value of different experiences, and how spoilers may change that. I view spoilers as something that changes a viewer’s experience from one thing to another (maybe for the better, maybe for the worst). Without spoilers, you get the benefit of seeing something without knowledge first, and then you can experience it again with knowledge. Even if that first experience is inferior, spoilers deny you that additional, initial viewpoint. I get the impression that most filmmakers value that initial experience and want their viewers to go into the film as blind as possible. You can always have that second (perhaps richer) experience later.

    Also, I don’t understand the notion of a “spoiler calendar”. Sure, if some film is important to you, than you should try to see it as soon as possible. But that doesn’t mean that I have seen EVERY film that I’m interested in seeing; it’s just not possible. Every cinephile has hundreds of films in their must-see queue. It’s unfair to assume that everyone has seen x film because it’s x years old. I’m all for including spoilers in reviews/podcasts as to not limit the discussion, but they all should have a warning up front indicating what films are being spoiled.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.