There ensued a whole bunch of smartass comments with spoilers of very old works. My contribution was "On The seventh day He rested." In terms of serious responses, I recall one person saying that, for modern works, one year is sufficient.
But I think a lot of it depends on context beyond how old a work is. Take, for example, the 1941 film classic, Citizen Kane. In most situations it's perfectly OK to give away the ending. Julie Brown even worked it into her song "Homecoming Queen's Got a Gun."
But if you're in a theatre, about to watch the movie, assume no one knows the ending. THis is a fact of life in the cinema history class Ethan and I take. We're watching movies that are decades old. In some cases they're almost a hundred years old. But the rule is clear: no spoilers. We can be total dumbasses in many other ways, screaming out stupid comments and random references to Pittsburgh as if we were a roomful of Tom Servos. But no spoilers. And I especially appreciated that last week, when we saw Psycho. For me, it was the first time, and most of the guys had seen it before. I could see them practically bursting as I would guess at what was going on -- "Does he have some kind of weird split personality thing going on?" "Uhh...you'll see."
But, absent a specific context that changes things, I can buy the idea of giving it a year.
My feeling is that you should NEVER reveal a spoiler, unless you know that EVERYONE in the room has already seen the movie or TV show, read the book, etc. If there’s any doubt, check first!
ReplyDeleteNever mind how many years have passed… Everything is always new to “someone”!
…And, yes… I bit my lip a number of times, as we watched “Psycho”! But, I’d rather “draw lip blood” than have spoiled such a great film for you and Ethan!
Just wait until we someday see “Citizen Kane”, and “Casablanca”! My lips are gonna need some major bandaging after THAT!
I've seen Citizen Kane.
DeleteJoe,
DeleteI understand your point, but nothing that could be a spoiler for anything? At a party, no talkabout plot lines in old movies. Nothing about Star Trek episodes.
Was it wrong for Julie Brown to include the "Citizen Kane" reference in the video above? Is it wrong for Saturday Night Live to do sketches that give away plot points of TV shows or movies? In Keith's class, when I compared a monster in that "Lost In Space" episode you showed us to the rock monster in "The Savage Curtain," was I wrong to explain plot points in the latter?
I think that, at some point, enough time has passed that, well, if you don't know the story then too frickin' bad.
I think it all depends on the situation.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, I agree with you – if not exactly in total – that giving away the ending of “Citizen Kane” by this point in time is not such a sin, and I would not be bothered by its revelation in popular media, as with your example of Julie Brown.
However, if in a room full of people, all of whom would be within the sound of my voice, I still feel the “proper” thing to do would be to ASK if anyone has not seen “Citizen Kane” – and, if so, ask if they would MIND if I “spoiled” it. …‘Cause some people really wouldn’t care, and may never intend to see “Citizen Kane” – just as if you spoiled “Boardwalk Empire” – because, for me, that wouldn’t *be* a spoiler.
Only you (or Ethan) could truly answer this, but I know *I* would feel terrible if I inadvertently spoiled “Psycho” for either of you. I feel the experience would have been considerably diminished for you if I had. It matters not that Keith and I have likely seen “Psycho” perhaps as many as 15-20 times over our lives because, as I say above, “Everything is always new to someone!” -- and, whenever possible, that should be taken into consideration.
It also depends on your definition of a “spoiler”… The meaning of “Rosebud” is a definite spoiler, regardless of the age of “Citizen Kane”. Again, the “severity of the crime of giving it away” can be dubious, and may be assessed strictly by the individual doing the spoiling.
For instance: “In Keith's class, when [Marc] compared a monster in that "Lost In Space" episode [Joe] showed us to the rock monster in "The Savage Curtain," [was Marc] wrong to explain plot points in the latter?”
No! Not at all! Nothing wrong with that on any level, because (strictly my own view, for others it may vary):
The existence of the rock monster in Lost in Space’s “Hunter’s Moon”, and its similarities to the rock monster in Star Trek’s “The Savage Curtain”, is not a “spoiler” for either episode. I don’t think that’s the point you’re making, but I thought I’d cover it just in case.
More to what I believe is your point, is your KNOWLEDGE of the members of Keith’s class. It’s probably safe to say that, of that group, only you and I really care about Star Trek – and you know I’ve seen it, and I know you’ve seen it. If anyone else hasn’t, it probably means little more to them than spoiling “Boardwalk Empire” means to me. And, if I recall correctly, you *did* ask about spoiling “Boardwalk Empire”. Likely because it hasn’t been around since the sixties!
So, I guess “spoiling” is really in the eye of the beholder… um, spoiler… um, beholding-spoiler, or whatever. And we’ll all just do our best to “Spoil Responsibly”!