Haha. Wow. Just wrote an editorial about this for our student newspaper. Must be in the air.

hahaha is this Matt's revenge against Dave from the slashfilmcast for calling him out re:spoilers?

IT is the height of ignorance that one would want to spoil certain story elements in a film just because you don't tant to talk around them in order to have an in depth conversation. Just because a movie has twists does not mean it relies on that. The story is a very important aspect of film, and one should be able to critique a film without tarnishing the experience for others.

Chad, you are an idiot.

Rick and Ilsa dont get together in the end of Casablanca. Now does knowing this, if you're a first time viewer of Casablanca, change the fact that the film is excellent? No. Does it spoil the film? No, for it is impossible for a film as good as casablanca to be spoiled. What knowing the ending of casablanca, prior to viewing the film, does is alter the way you see it or your perception of it. If for instance you know that rick and ilsa dont get together in the end of
the movie than for a first time viewer all their romantic tension and foreplay holds no weight for the viewer already knows
that it all amounts to nothing more than a bittersweet tryst than life long love rekindled if just for an instant. The example I'm trying to make is that spoilers can't necessary ruin a movie if the movie is any good,
but they can alter the way, at least the first (arguably most important) time, that you view it. For example take Wolverine Origins from this summer.
Both wolverine and Sabertooth are alive in X-men 1. This means that any near death experience and perils they experience in X-men legends
lose any sense of spectacle for you already know the out come. No matter how badly deadpool beats them in the end of the movie
you know that they survive and make it to x-men 1. Now this argument is not without flaws for every movie should be taken as its own entity.
X-men legends should be considered by itself apart from the other 3 and therefore free to play with chronology as it sees fit but I still think the example serves my point fairly well.
You should be able to discuss movies without giving away important plot details. I would never want to give away a plot point just to make it easier for myself to explain something
at the risk of altering someone elses perception of a film and not having them experience it with fresh eyes. Roger Ebert has been discussing movies since 1964
and has been spoiler free till now.

I think the key is just how "spoilery" the spoiler is. There's a big difference between an "it was his sled" moment where everyone and his dog already knows it anyway because it's entered cultural canon, and how a two week old movie ends. And then of course there's situations like Portal and The Crying Game where the spoiler is probably what's being discussed in the first place.

It is the height of ignorance that one would want to spoil certain story elements in a film just because you don't want to talk around them in order to have an in depth conversation. Just because a movie has twists does not mean it relies on that. The story is a very important aspect of film, and one should be able to critique a film without tarnishing the experience for others. I needed to correct my spelling mistakes from the above comment. My computer was acting funny.

I loved the spoilers show. I find now that one of the biggest places for spoilers are DVD menus, which often feature a key scene or piece of dialogue on endless repeat. While for the most part spoilers don't bother me, I'm fascinated that these DVD producers don't think about the rental or first time viewing market when they create these menus.

In any event, keep up the good work and I hope you two were wearing Olly Moss' fantastic "Spoilt" shirt while you were recording. http://www.threadless.com/product/844/Spoilt

Hey Alison and Matt, long time podcaster, first time letter-writer.

I have listened to virtually all of your podcasts, and one of the reasons (besides there being a shortage of truly good cinema pods around) is that for people that have a preference towards the arthouse versus the mainstream, you never seem condescending or pretentious. You have never looked down your nose at those who prefer Bay over Goddard, and even when you have trashed movies that I liked, I never took it personally or thought “wow, get off your cinematic high horse, you two!”

Until now.

I don’t mean for that to shock you or anything, despite the perceived theatrics, but I was really taken aback by your podcast about spoilers. I have never heard you two sound so dismayed about peoples’ reaction to spoilers. Maybe it’s that (to me, anyways) it sounded like you two took the extreme position on every movie and every explanation of “spoiler”. I worked in a video store for about 10 years, so not only was I in a position to tell customers about movies, but obviously about movies that had already been out in the mainstream for a while. People don’t want to live in a bubble with blinders on their eyes and hands over their ears until they watch a movie. They simply want to be told a story, and the more of the story they learn for themselves, the better. That’s all. I don’t think there’s anything more to it than that. If a reviewer feels the need to go into detail, I would like to think they are talented enough to do so without revealing too much. I have been given Roger Ebert video books since 1987, and in all the reviews I read, not once did I feel he gave away anything, and they were as detailed as the movie; he was gifted enough to convey his feeling without saying EXACTLY what happened. To be specific, that excerpt you read about “The Mist”? The author could have voiced his displeasure by mentioning how dark endings don’t mean great cinema WITHOUT SAYING A DAD SHOOTS HIS KID AT THE END!

I guess what really goes without saying (but I’ll go ahead and say it anyway) is that there are so many different types of movies, moviegoers, movie outlets and movie critiques, that who knows what line will or won’t be crossed? I don’t think it’s too outlandish to also suggest that people divulge spoilers for the mere effect of being the jerk who wants to ruin things for other people. To use Alison’s criteria, talk about the acting, the pacing, the cinematography, the direction—just stay away from plot specifics. Talk details with those who have seen it, find other avenues for people who haven’t.

Anyway, I still love your podcasts, will still listen, for some reason this podcast just came off in a light I hadn’t heard before.

P.S. I had seen “The Mist”, but have not seen “Inglorious Basterds”. While I may have liked to have experienced history being re-written for myself, I don’t feel cheated; the movie isn’t being touted as Hitler-central, just Tarantino making an uber-violent WWII film about killing Nazis. Whereas “The Mist” doesn’t necessarily hinge on knowing the end, it certainly is a hefty contributor.

Also, to be fair to you guys, anyone who listens to your podcasts know that you are not a “review show”, you talk about trends and topics, so in-depth details about movies are the norm. Keep up the good work guys.

I have been listening to your podcasts for a long periof of time (almost 2 years i guess), but its the first time I am giving my feedback.

In my opinion, the trailer that dosen't give out much about what happens in the movie is DISTRICT 9. The trailer only gives out the concept of aliens living on earth and having a conflict with humans, but the other important events, such as humans as the evil forces and a half-alien human fighting with aliens against humans is not shown.

Recsently I saw the trailer of the movie ARMORED and it almost gave out everything that will be happening in the movie: a heist during the money transfer, a perfect plan going bad, and the "good guy" robber turning against his own companions. So the trailer was sort of the summary of the movie.

Thanks,
Syed Shah