![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackwabbitJJ Abrams, on spoilers:
Spoilers give fans the answers they want, the resolution they crave. As an avid fan of movies and TV myself, I completely understand the desire to find out behind-the-scenes details in a nanosecond. Which, given technology, is often how long it takes—to the frustration of the storytellers. Efforts to gather this intel and the attempts to plug leaks create an ongoing battle between filmmakers and the very fans they are dying to entertain and impress. But the real damage isn't so much that the secret gets out. It's that the experience is destroyed. The illusion is diminished. Which may not matter to some. But then what's the point of actually seeing that movie or episode? How does knowing the twist before you walk into the theater—or what that island is really about before you watch the finale—make for a richer viewing experience? It's telling that the very term itself—spoiler—has become synonymous with "cool info you can get before the other guy." What no one remembers is that it literally means "to damage irreparably; to ruin." Spoilers make no bones about destroying the intended experience—and somehow that has become, for many, the preferred choice.
---
Spoilers give fans the answers they want, the resolution they crave. As an avid fan of movies and TV myself, I completely understand the desire to find out behind-the-scenes details in a nanosecond. Which, given technology, is often how long it takes—to the frustration of the storytellers. Efforts to gather this intel and the attempts to plug leaks create an ongoing battle between filmmakers and the very fans they are dying to entertain and impress. But the real damage isn't so much that the secret gets out. It's that the experience is destroyed. The illusion is diminished. Which may not matter to some. But then what's the point of actually seeing that movie or episode? How does knowing the twist before you walk into the theater—or what that island is really about before you watch the finale—make for a richer viewing experience? It's telling that the very term itself—spoiler—has become synonymous with "cool info you can get before the other guy." What no one remembers is that it literally means "to damage irreparably; to ruin." Spoilers make no bones about destroying the intended experience—and somehow that has become, for many, the preferred choice.
---
Hear, hear!
Castle...watch'cha think?
Date: May. 28th, 2009 06:54 am (UTC)Re: Castle...watch'cha think?
Date: May. 29th, 2009 12:54 am (UTC)I enjoyed the first season of Castle.
It started out trying a bit too hard with the snark, but after the roles solidified a bit, it gelled much better for me.
I tried really hard NOT to like Castle, because I didn't want to be that girl. You know the one who says, "OMG! Like, this show is soooo awesome because Nathan Fillion's in it and he is sooooo hot!" The one who thinks anything Nate does is gold. (Um...seen Water's Edge? I haven't yet, but I've heard...yeah...moving on.) So, I tried to be hard on it to avoid that. Couldn't do it. It's a fun ride and I quite like it.
I really enjoyed the season finale and I can't wait to see how they treat that. Yummy, yummy, yummy angst-fest ahead!