'Safe'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
But "anything at all" certainly includes saying he's a ghost.
I'm not following. "I don't want to know anything at all about it" equals "I want to know nothing about it." That person should not read reviews.
That's a quite different standard from "I want to know more about this movie, so I am choosing to read this review. I expect to learn some things about the plot, but I still would be annoyed if a shocking 3rd-act twist was revealed here."
Strega, when you said "if you don't want to know anything at all" I thought you were overstating it. Obviously people want to know something. The division is merely on how much. In for a penny, in for a pound? I don't agree. If it's a surprise (and as a reviewer, you can damned well tell), let the filmmaker pull it off. If you're good at your job, you should be able to discuss the movie without revealing stuff in most cases.
And it seems this movie can be discussed without that reveal, so why blow it?
And I agreed that I was, and talked about how, if you're on the phobic end of the spectrum, you'll probably have to filter your sources.
In for a penny, in for a pound? I don't agree.I don't know what I've said that reads this way. Thus my confusion.
I refer to the "Bruce Willis gets shot at the start of the movie" example. You can certainly discuss the movie without mentioning that. I don't think that means it is a spoiler, or that a critic is obliged to avoid mentioning it.
Are you assuming that the person outraged doesn't want to know anything about the movie? If so, I don't see why. If not, I don't see the segue.
On the radio (which, IMO, is a different thing altogether than a written review), a "review" of The Kids Are Alright played. I swear, it sounded like she was doing a point-by-point summary of the entire plot, which, wtf, lady? She gave some criticism (good and bad) of elements within that summary, but, seriously?!
I want to see this so very badly ...
I was teetering at Portman and they lost me with Aronofsky.
Are you assuming that the person outraged doesn't want to know anything about the movie?
The person who is outraged over learning about what happens in the opening scene of a movie? If I'm writing a review, yes, I guess I am going to assume that. Because I cannot know (much less comprehend) all the nuances of what every reader considers to be a spoiler. "Some people want to know some things but not other things" may be a more accurate premise, but it doesn't offer any functional benefit for the writer.
But I read the key as that it was a surprise that happened at the opening of the movie, not just any thing. Which is why Matt's analogy to Darla sounded right. Not everything in every opening ten minutes of the movie falls into that category.
In the example I was using, the analogy to Darla is right on -- it's a surprise that sets the tone for the rest, because it's not what you were expecting just from looking.
what movie sparked this discussion in the first place?