# Thanks for spoiling the movie for me! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 6, 2005, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-for-spoiling-the-movie-for-me/288612 "2005-02-06T04:26:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Brynda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e79b87/32.png) [@Brynda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brynda)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-for-spoiling-the-movie-for-me/288612/61 "2005-02-08T09:36:27Z")
I disagree wholeheartedly with this. It isn’t just hack movies, ones with a twist, etc that are spoiled by well…spoilers. Movies are meant to occur sequentially. What the director means for you to know first is the first thing in the movie and so on. If you, for example, are supposed to know from the beginning that a character dies in the end, the director will tell you. It is storytelling, for goodness sake. When you know something about the movie, it affects your watching of it, your understanding and enjoyment of the story. To use your example, I would love to have the experience of watching Romeo and Juliet without knowing the end. Just imagine how much more powerful it would be to see that, not knowing if they are going to live happily ever after or not, hoping they will, fearing they will not. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-for-spoiling-the-movie-for-me/288612/62 "2005-02-08T12:37:13Z")
> [@ethanwinfield](#): > > Why do people feel the need to spoil things? Here on the west coast, we don’t get to see “live” shows. Last April I was checking in on one of my message boards and a troll had posted 50 threads all with the title “Bill wins!” (I’m not going to bother putting that in a spoiler box. If you cared at all, you would already know who Bill is and that he won. If you didn’t care, you shouldn’t care that I “spoiled” it for you.) The entire first page was one solid “Bill wins!” > > I must admit, I am guilty of the accidental spoil. I saw _Forrest Gump_ the day it came out. As we were leaving I said, That was so sad when she died at the end. My date looked at me and pointed to all the people standing against the wall waiting for the next showing. He explained to me that I just spoiled it for all of them. :smack: No you didn’t. I would just say he spoiled your date by being a prick. ---
**Author:** ![mobo85](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mobo85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mobo85)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-for-spoiling-the-movie-for-me/288612/63 "2005-02-08T21:20:06Z")
> [@ethanwinfield](#): > > I must admit, I am guilty of the accidental spoil. I saw _Forrest Gump_ the day it came out. As we were leaving I said, That was so sad when she died at the end. My date looked at me and pointed to all the people standing against the wall waiting for the next showing. He explained to me that I just spoiled it for all of them. :smack: This reminds me of an episode of _The Simpsons_ where a teenage Homer annoys an entire line of moviegoers about to see _The Empire Strikes Back_ by commenting awedly, “Wow! Who woulda guessed that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father?” (I didn’t put this in a spoiler box, not only because the prequels make this common knowledge, but also “Luke, I am your father” has become a ending cliche often parodied, one of five that I know of. The others are _Citizen Kane_, _Soylent Green_, _The Crying Game_, and _Planet of the Apes_- like I said, Liberty’s on the freakin’ DVD _box_, for cryin’ out loud!) ---
**Author:** ![Sleel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/73ab20/32.png) [@Sleel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleel)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-for-spoiling-the-movie-for-me/288612/64 "2005-02-14T06:11:16Z")
## **Brynda** , re: storytelling. Then I guess foreshadowing and symbolism are not valid storytelling techniques as far as you’re concerned. An alert reader or viewer will be able to anticipate a story line well in advance of a “twist” if these techniques are used. One of the reasons they _are_ used is so that the audience doesn’t have a reaction of “BULLSHIT!” when the ending is different from what the main story would have you believe. The ending of **The Murder of Roger Ackroyd** often received criticism because the normal conventions of murder mysteries were flouted, which made some readers complain that Agatha Christie “cheated.” I’m actually more frustrated by people who are the reverse of the OP; people who say, “I knew what the ending was going to be three nanoseconds after the beginning scene.” Not only do I not care how clever you are, I don’t care that you think something is boring or unoriginal because you can figure out the ending before the story gets that far. You’re doomed to a lifetime of disappointment in entertainment if you demand that the writer/director always conceal the ending from you. Not only is it close to impossible to do this in a plausible way, but it limits the possibilities of storytelling severely. If knowing (or not knowing) the ending of something ruins it for you, there’s nothing else there. The story is just a setting for a clever trick that, once played, has no lasting appeal. Good storytelling lasts and is enjoyable even if you’ve already seen what happens next. Being surprised at the end may give extra punch to the story, but there has to be a story there in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-for-spoiling-the-movie-for-me/288612/65 "2005-02-14T20:15:09Z")
Alert: “Hide and Seek” and “Secret Window” spoilers > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > [Spoiler] > It also didn’t explain all the girl’s creepy behavior previous to that or why she wouldn’t have told her dad’s psychologist friend when she had the chance to escape with her (what deep insights from that woman too. “Trauma causes pain.” How profound. > > I thought the ending was even more annoying in that it didn’t play fair with Fanning’s performance prior to that. I thought Fanning was so preternaturally spooky and “mature” in those scenes that I was actually entertained by the way she was scaring the crap out of the other characters. The movie then just goes off into the twist and the Fanning character goes from creepy and interesting to be a standard, terrified kid in danger, horror movie cliche. I wish the film had had the guts to go all the way with an evil, disturbed kid reveal. Now that would have been a surprise. [/spoiler] > [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > [spoiler]I still didn’t get the bit about the teapot heating up so fast until I was in the car on the way home. I didn’t get what the smudge on his hand was. I didn’t anticipate that his office hadn’t really been unpacked. > > Knowing fully what the spoiler was would make this nothing more than a pretty sad story about a girl who has a really shitty few months with crazy dad.[/spoiler] [spoiler]I guess I need more help understanding this (and boy do I feel stupid since it’s considered a dumb movie). I thought it was a multiple personality thing, so why wasn’t his office unpacked? What is him on the headphones supposed to mean then? At least in Secret Window it’s just lost time when they show him “asleep”. If he’s just pretending to be sane in front of others, why act that way when it’s just he and Emily? What bugged me is people usually know about their own alters, so the good dad alter would know about Charlie. There is a disturbed kid reveal at the end, and we can now anticipate her killing Famke Janssen.[/spoiler] ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-for-spoiling-the-movie-for-me/288612/66 "2005-02-14T22:03:33Z")
> [@Sleel](#): > > I’m actually more frustrated by people who are the reverse of the OP; people who say, “I knew what the ending was going to be three nanoseconds after the beginning scene.” Not only do I not care how clever you are, I don’t care that you think something is boring or unoriginal because you can figure out the ending before the story gets that far. You’re doomed to a lifetime of disappointment in entertainment if you demand that the writer/director always conceal the ending from you. Not only is it close to impossible to do this in a plausible way, but it limits the possibilities of storytelling severely. Nonsense. (Well, in most circumstances, it is.) This complaint is only likely to be raised about films that are intended to be driven by _suspense._ The enjoyment of suspense or mystery films comes from speculating about what’s going on – the viewer identifies with the investigator and spends the duration of the film playing with the puzzle pieces. A good suspense plot makes the solution apprehendable by the careful reader/viewer, and often makes _subtle_ use of plausible red herrings in order to keep the audience engaged. The revelation of the mystery is the climax. If it comes in the first fifteen minutes of the film, there’s very little to keep the audience interested. Yeah, you can still enjoy the actors’ delivery of their lines, or take in the eye-candy, but it’s going to rankle every time they insult your intelligence by dangling another “provocative” clue or obvious misdirection. Of course there are great movies where the denoument is fairly obvious at the outset. The difference is that these movies aren’t “puzzle” movies, and anticipating the end doesn’t eviscerate the movie. In a film like _Hide And Seek_, it’s clear that the revelation in the third act _is_ intended to be a surprise. Unfortunately, the writers approached it so ham-handedly that very few people are likely to be surprised – and most will probably have figured it out within twenty minutes to a half hour – leaving them rolling their eyes every time they’re spoon-fed another ridiculously obvious “clue.” When you finally get to the reveal, about which no doubt has remained for over an hour, it’s accompanied by the usual paintbox of cinematic cues that you’re supposed to be _SHOCKED!_ Instead, you’re sitting there thinking, “You’re kidding me, right?” It’s not a “Oooh, look at me, I’m so smart I figured it out right away,” thing. It’s “Dear god, the screenwriter didn’t even _try._” Even if the actors hit every one of their marks, the score is fantastic, the special effects are groundbreaking, the sound design is brilliant, the overall effect is going to be disappointing, and it will seem like a lot of people put in a great effort to bring a poor script to the screen. Silk purses & sow’s ears. _The Usual Suspects_ is a good example of how that sort of a film is _supposed_ to work. There are lots of clues as to what’s really going on presented, but they’re subtle enough that they don’t insult you. If you _do_ happen to figure it out before it becomes explicit, you’re probably not going to feel that it’s because it was poorly written, and it doesn’t really spoil the effect. Instead, you’ll probably be _pleased_ to have figured it out – because the puzzle was presented satisfactorily. If you kept getting hit with flashing fluorescent hints about Keyser Soze, so that it was fairly plain what was going on near the beginning of the film, then there’s no way that it would be so highly regarded – it would have gone directly to the dustheap of crap films that squander the talents of the people who worked on them and insult the intelligence of people who watch them – just like _Hide and Seek_. That being said, about **kung fu lola** and **Diogenes** ’ spoiler criticism of Dakota Fanning’s character’s motivation: (Geez, enough possessives there?) > [@kung fu lola](#): > > Like, why didn’t the daughter tell anyone about how strangely her father was acting? It would have made so much more sense if “Charlie” had been the mother’s paramour; then it would have actually made sense that the daughter was going along with him. I think we were supposed to gather that De Niro’s character had been a distant father, very cold and analytical. His manic alter is a stark contrast to this – he _plays_ with the girl. She says specifically that she likes Charlie because he plays with her “like mommy used to.” It makes a certain amount of sense that she would keep this secret. On a simple level, Charlie could be both fun and comforting – and probably preferable to her Dad’s usual morose self. When she began to realize that something was seriously _wrong_ with him, she would also be motivated by anxiety about losing her only remaining parent. She tries to discourage people from coming around because she at last understands that they “could get hurt,” but she doesn’t feel personally threatened. Her creepy behaviour and reticence to reveal the situation are adequately explained from the point of view of a child whose primary concern is preserving what little remains of family life, while not wanting to see anyone get unneccessarily hurt. This is plausible enough, especially when you consider the typical responses from small children who witness a parent’s mundanely monstrous behaviour. It’s possible to be frequently terrified of someone, but still love them and be afraid of losing them. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-for-spoiling-the-movie-for-me/288612/67 "2005-02-14T22:24:18Z")
> [@Talon Karrde](#): > > I hope it wasn’t Secret Window you were talking about, otherwise you just spoiled it for me! I was gonna watch it this week too! > > :mad: Don’t bother: it sucks, and is the worst thing I’ve seen him in in years. Without the spoiler, we’d predicted the ending pretty early on; and without the twist, the movie’s got precious little going on in it. See something else instead. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![BoBettie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@BoBettie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BoBettie)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-for-spoiling-the-movie-for-me/288612/68 "2005-02-14T22:49:53Z")
When I watched The Village, I honest to Og didn’t know the “twist” was supposed to be a twist. I assumed it from the beginning, although I don’t know why. Af for Fight Club, that one hit me right between the eyes the first time, but I still enjoy re-watching it and enjoying how the movie was made from a different perspective. ---
**Author:** ![Brynda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e79b87/32.png) [@Brynda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brynda)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-for-spoiling-the-movie-for-me/288612/69 "2005-02-21T23:05:41Z")
> [@Sleel](#): > > ## **Brynda** , re: storytelling. Then I guess foreshadowing and symbolism are not valid storytelling techniques as far as you’re concerned. An alert reader or viewer will be able to anticipate a story line well in advance of a “twist” if these techniques are used. One of the reasons they _are_ used is so that the audience doesn’t have a reaction of “BULLSHIT!” when the ending is different from what the main story would have you believe. The ending of **The Murder of Roger Ackroyd** often received criticism because the normal conventions of murder mysteries were flouted, which made some readers complain that Agatha Christie “cheated.” > > \ Sorry for the delay, I have been offline for a while. Uh, big difference between foreshadowing by the author and some yo-yo telling me what he wants to about a movie. If the screenwriter or director choose to foreshadow or use symbolism, good for them, thanks a lot, no problem. That’s part of the storytelling, for goodness’ sake. I just object to some person who had nothing to do with the creation of the movie doing the “foreshadowing.” That ain’t foreshadowing, it’s spoiling. Don’t do it. ---
**Author:** ![Tenar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@Tenar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tenar)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-for-spoiling-the-movie-for-me/288612/70 "2005-02-22T23:10:51Z")
> [@Sleel](#): > > I’m not sure why people think that knowing the ending of something “spoils” it for them. Everyone for the last 400 years has known how **Romeo and Juliet** ends, but you can still enjoy watching the play. True enough, but Romeo and Juliet is not a suspense thriller. Also, although it may have been just another romantic tragedy when it came out, people don’t go to see Shakespeare plays only because of the plot. If a (in my opinion) crappy as hell movie like **Unbreakable** has its “surprise” ruined, there isn’t much left to recommend it. That is hardly true of most Shakespeare plays. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-for-spoiling-the-movie-for-me/288612/71 "2005-02-23T00:39:47Z")
> [@Sleel](#): > > I’m not sure why people think that knowing the ending of something “spoils” it for them. Everyone for the last 400 years has known how **Romeo and Juliet** ends, but you can still enjoy watching the play. Yes. Who would have expected that ending from a work of Shakespear. Of course, he did sneak a few hints in about how it turns out right in the beginning, for those who were paying close attention. > [@](#): > > Two households, both alike in dignity, > In fair Verona, where we lay our scene, > From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, > Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean. > From forth the fatal loins of these two foes > A pair of star-cross’d lovers take their life; > Whose misadventured piteous overthrows > Do with their death bury their parents’ strife. > The fearful passage of their death-mark’d love, > And the continuance of their parents’ rage, > Which, but their children’s end, nought could remove, > Is now the two hours’ traffic of our stage; > The which if you with patient ears attend, > What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend. But what a twist! Ok, snark aside, **Larry Mudd** , **Brynda** and **Tenar** addressed the real point fairly well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-for-spoiling-the-movie-for-me/288612.md?page=3)