I'm a huge spoilerphobe, and while I would be sort of annoyed about a spoiled surprise in the first scene—because if it's set up as a surprise in the first scene, you're meant to be surprised, dammit—I certainly wouldn't consider the movie ruined, for crying out loud. (Was it clear from the review that the surprise was in the first scene? Because it's kind of like the trailer for The Town, where it seems to spoil a huge reveal, but that must come much earlier in the movie than I think it does, or that's shitty marketing.)

Ebert spoiled the fate of the one of the main characters in Cloverfield in, like, the first sentence of his review. And said character dies, like, five minutes from the end. Thankfully, I'd seen the movie already, but damn.

The reviewer said it was the scene before the opening credits.

Ebert spoiled the fate of the one of the main characters in Cloverfield in, like, the first sentence of his review. And said character dies, like, five minutes from the end.

This is like back copy of books that talks about some big event three-quarters in. Annoying!

Ebert is notorious for spoiling in his reviews.

I can't imagine how you'd go about describing most movie plots without talking about the first scene. And writing a review without saying anything about the plot doesn't leave you with much to say.

So, what do you people think? If a surprise comes in the first few minutes, how bad is it to know that ahead of time?

Think of how the series premiere of Buffy would have played if someone had told you "this schoolgirl vamps out and kills her date in the first three minutes!"

I dunno; is that scene valueless now because you know what's going to happen?

I understand that it's fun to be surprised by something, but sometimes people act as if "surprise" is the only pleasure one can get from a story. I have thought, "Gee, it would have been interesting to watch Psycho (or Alien, or any of 100 other movies) without any idea about what was coming." And it would have. But even knowing quite a lot about them, they were entertaining. And even surprising, because knowing what happens is not the same as experiencing it yourself.

People in the comments were like, "Thanks for ruining the movie! Now I won't even bother seeing it! How about a spoiler warning, jackass???"

With this sort of thing I feel like, if you don't want to know anything at all about a movie before seeing it, maybe you shouldn't read reviews of it?

With this sort of thing I feel like, if you don't want to know anything at all about a movie before seeing it, maybe you shouldn't read reviews of it?

Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing!

if you don't want to know anything at all

I bet "anything at all" is an overgeneralisation. They just differ on what's important. I didn't care about knowing that Bruce Willis's character was dead in The Sixth Sense, but I'm not going to harsh on someone else because they'd rather not know up front.

Think of how the series premiere of Buffy would have played if someone had told you "this schoolgirl vamps out and kills her date in the first three minutes!"

I watched S1 long after I knew Darla was a vampire, and it's still a good scene. And it sets the tone for the entire series - I can see value in describing it for a potential viewer.

I don't know... I credit that scene with making me fall in love with the series before the opening credits finished rolling, so I think it was pretty important to be taken off guard.

With the exception of Farscape most series that I've been really invested in have pulled me in with a "wow!" moment at the very beginning. (And I suppose my first sight of Ben Browder all sweaty in a wifebeater could qualify as the initial "wow!" moment for that series, though it wasn't the doing of the writers...)