Customer Discussions > Movie forum

The Alibi Lounge

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 10000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 11:30:14 PM PDT
C McGhee says:
Q- clean no more

HEY! Wait a minute, that was service by request!

Posted on May 9, 2012 6:15:28 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 9, 2012 6:19:00 AM PDT
Hikari says:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/maurice-sendak-where-wild-things-read-christopher-walken-212430177.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Walken reads Where the Wild Things Are . . . ha!

"There's a bear . . .strung up. I assume murdered. Maybe a suicide . . .I dunno."

Posted on May 9, 2012 8:37:53 AM PDT
Savage Lucy says:
I feel this discussion could be much worse...

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 8:40:52 AM PDT
Balok says:
@Mischief Girl:

> Q is a great character.

I preferred the original character on which Q was based (General Trelaine, the lonely Squire of Gothos).

Posted on May 9, 2012 9:33:22 AM PDT
Cavaradossi says:
Does anyone have any idea why Sony abandoned the DVD recorder market? Don't people still use DVD recorders in Japan or have they all switched to Blu-ray recorders?

Posted on May 9, 2012 10:17:54 AM PDT
Rock~N~Rolla says:
Hey, where's Bella been lately? Probably watching that damn Eaglet Cam again, or too busy listening to her L.L. Cool J CDs I'll bet?

Posted on May 9, 2012 1:23:00 PM PDT
MG, re: so-called "spoilers"--people are absurdly sensitive about that subject. If a film has to rely solely on a plot twist or surprise ending to be interesting, it's unlikely to be interesting in general. If I disclose plot points in a review, I will usually say so in advance.

And in most cases, so-called spoilers are pretty obvious from the beginning.

Posted on May 9, 2012 1:28:38 PM PDT
Savage Lucy says:
I agree it takes a lot to really 'spoil' a movie. It's like thinking you can really only watch a movie ONCE. Don't you watch movies you've already seen and still enjoy them?

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 3:11:06 PM PDT
C. J. Vasta says:
I disagree. Ten years is actually long enough for somthing to fall into semi-obscurity allowing a fresh generation to watch it anew without a lot of the spoiler drenched-hype. Whether or not it's a spoiler is actually more or a case by case thing. For example, by now an accepted part of the narrative that Luke Skywalker is Darth Vader's son. The prequels which Lucas intends to be watched first obviously are built around the fact that Anakim and Darth Vader are the same person. The true identity of Jaye Davidson's character in "The Crying Game" is generally the first thing that comes up when they see the movie any example of something similar in media or real-life, the movie is referred as an example. In general, one should not suppose everyone knows everything about a show because new viewers arrive. I like to watch old episodes of The Twilight Zone. I usually enjoy the more obscure, rather than the ones have been spolered to death.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 3:13:32 PM PDT
C. J. Vasta says:
Unfortunately the Amazon forum doesn't give you the ability to skip a post, invisible ink, or little snazzy hideaway boxes. You have to scroll over it with one's eye half shut before you see anything.

Posted on May 9, 2012 3:19:00 PM PDT
I just noticed this thread. Nice thread! Okay...if this is the bona fide replacement, you can skip my "Funkadelic Freestyle Substitute Teacher" thread. But remember, I meant well.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 5:25:34 PM PDT
C McGhee says:
C J Vasta- You have to scroll over it with one's eye half shut before you see anything.

I don't find that all that difficult & if I don't want to know a spoiler I just skip over the reviews that have Spoilers on them. You can look & not read.

Posted on May 9, 2012 5:32:45 PM PDT
There was once a Sunday episode of "Peanuts". Linus is watching TV. Lucy strolls in, "You're watching 'Citizen Kane', I see." "Yeah." "I've seen it about ten times." Linus says,"This is the first time I've ever seen it." Lucy walks away, but first she says "Rosebud was his sled." Linus falls off his chair and wails in frustration.

I wonder how many people that spoiled the ending of the film for.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 5:42:15 PM PDT
Savage Lucy:

A film director, Robert Zemeckis I believe, defended the practice of revealing key plot points in a movie's trailer. He claimed people liked to know how a movie ends before they go see it. With all respect to Mr. Zemeckis, he's wrong.

Sure, it's fun to rewatch movies. First time around, though, I don't want to know the ending, or any big surprises. I enjoyed trying to figure out whether or not the guy on trial in "The Lincoln Lawyer" was guilty or not (to pick a fairly recent film). I didn't want to know that before I even bought my popcorn.

"The Sting" has a big twist at the end, and I still remember the audience's delight when it was revealed (this was right after it came out). They enjoyed being fooled and manipulated by the filmmakers, and I did too.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 5:42:16 PM PDT
C McGhee says:
W. David English- I wonder how many people that spoiled the ending of the film for.

Only those that thought there was only one point made in the movie.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 5:45:24 PM PDT
C McGhee says:
W. David English- The Lincoln Lawyer & The Sting

It didn't seem to hurt their popularity any. I don't watch trailers, sort of keeps the responsibility where it belongs, inside me not on someone else.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 5:46:26 PM PDT
C McGhee:

Citizen Kane can be enjoyed on many levels, but one of the pleasures for the first-time viewer is trying to figure out what "Rosebud" referred to.

Movies are discussed and reviewed so much now it's hard to walk in and see a film and be totally ignorant of plot points. Hitchcock wanted Janet Leigh's murder to be an absolute shocker, but did anybody not hear about the shower scene before watching "Psycho"?

Posted on May 9, 2012 5:52:49 PM PDT
Cavaradossi says:
I'm no fan of spoilers either and I skip over things that contain them. I understand, though, the frustration of fans of a movie who want to discuss things the rest of us might consider spoilers. I suggest that each such movie have its own thread, with the word "spoilers" featured prominently so those who don't want to know yet can avoid them. There is currently a thread on this forum in which revealing movie endings is the point. I never open it.

For the record, I avoid spoilers even for older films I've never seen because one day I might. If I never see the movie nothing is lost, but if I do, I don't want the experience corrupted by spoilers. "Spoilers" - bad thing; not posting spoilers where the unwary will stumble on them - good thing.

Posted on May 9, 2012 5:56:56 PM PDT
Cavaradossi says:
W. David English

I saw "Psycho" in its first showing on its first day in town. I didn't know and it was the sort of shock you never forget. Of course, I followed Hitchcock's admonition and never revealed any plot points to others, though I certainly encouraged lots to go.

Posted on May 9, 2012 6:03:41 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 9, 2012 6:04:55 PM PDT
Cavaradossi says:
I was not able to see The Empire Strikes Back during it's first run. My first viewing of the movie was over a year later when it was brought back to theatres. during that time I read a lot about Empire, as well as participated in conversations with coworkers, enthusiastic Star Wars fans, about the film, but I never saw in print, nor did my coworkers ever clue me into the "Big Reveal", so the secret hit me as hard as it did them a hear earlier. I still think it amazing that so many people must have not wanted to be the ones to spoil the experience for others.

The same situation held true for The Crying Game, but there it was an even longer delay before I finally saw the movie on HBO. I was grateful I didn't know before the big scene.

I'm really no fan of spoilers.

Posted on May 9, 2012 6:09:37 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 9, 2012 6:11:22 PM PDT
I think in one of the "Naked Gun" films, during the closing credits, one of the lines was:

THE CRYING GAME: She's a guy.

Pauline Kael said she knew the second she saw Jaye Davidson's hands. I think I suspected it, but wasn't sure, and I'm glad I didn't know for sure.

I remember the audience recoiling in disgust when Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve kissed on the mouth in a movie. You didn't know it was coming, and people around me did NOT like it, not one bit.

Posted on May 9, 2012 6:17:20 PM PDT
J. Baker says:
MG >Re: "I have a new question to close out this thread with. If a movie is over, say, 10 years old, can we share "spoilers"? I mean, you should have seen the movie by then, and if not, well then, it's not rude for others who have seen it to discuss it. Am I right? am I wrong?"<

>> and WAS: "so-called "spoilers"--people are absurdly sensitive about that subject. If a film has to rely solely on a plot twist or surprise ending to be interesting, it's unlikely to be interesting in general. If I disclose plot points in a review, I will usually say so in advance.

>And in most cases, so-called spoilers are pretty obvious from the beginning."<<

__________________
I have to disagree with MG, WAS, and SL, for the most part, and agree to a degree as well.
There is no expiration date on real spoilers. Unless the "spoiler" is like 'Citizen Kane''s notorious sled, and we've already heard about it for over 70 years. That doesn't truly "spoil" anything in the plot, and it's long since been revealed by nearly everyone, even those who haven't seen the movie.

'Planet of the Apes' is probably in the same category. That's another one that should be easy enough for intelligent people (or anyone familiar with Rod Serling's penchant for "gotcha" turnabout endings on Twilight Zone) to guess from the outset.
For recent movies, possibly 'The Crying Game' as well. Since I knew the "spoiler" on that one before seeing it, it's hard to judge how that effected my "enjoyment" on the movie; I don't think I would have enjoyed it either way.

People need to be discreet and prudent on revealing too much of any plot, no matter how old the movie is.
Naturally, when most trailers are in the business of revealing Too Much Plot, it's hard to get audience members to be less forthcoming when they talk about it!

I completely disagree with the notion that "you should have seen the movie by then"... I remember arguing with a curate at a museum (!) who didn't want to play too many older movies(?!?,) because (his absurd rationale:) "Everybody who would have wanted to see them, has already seen them by now"!
Totally absurd, of course, since the main purpose (I thought) of revival houses and museums was preserving the older works for new generations, not just aging nostalgists.

Now, say that somebody was 13 years old when Clint Eastwood's 'Million Dollar Baby' came out, and for whatever reason they weren't able to see it then. They're adults now, by every legal definition, and free to make up there own mind to see this "controversial" movie. Or not.
Maybe if they've already heard a "spoiler" or two, they would have already decided that "this kind of movie's not for me"....
Certain kinds of "spoilers" can not only disturb ones impression of the movie whilst seeing it, it could destroy their desire to see it in the first place.

Personally, I hate the mystique of the "spoiler"... and too much is placed in that category, but one has to be careful still; a few things should be common sense, when writing a review or just casually chatting, that it's prudent not to reveal some details of certain movies.
Especially on an open forum, where we have no idea who's reading it.

I know, where that movie 'Million Dollar Baby' is concerned, that some bloggers took much relish at the time in revealing the ending, because they hated the movie (usually for religious reasons, and usually because they hadn't actually seen the movie themselves, much like the 'Last Temptation of Christ' protesters.)

Then there are people who think it's perfectly acceptable to give a complete plot synopsis of a movie (which is perfectly pointless, really) without any concern for the sensitive areas of the plot they may be revealing.

They do tend to be overly concerned with the whole "spoilers" mystique on IMDb, but not always, and not most other movie related websites I've seen.

It doesn't really bother me, since I tend not to read the reviews of those I haven't learned to trust.

P. S. - I saw this movie called 'The Sixth Sense' and **SPOILER ALERT!** <:sotto voice:> he's a ghost....**/SPOILER**
↑↑↑
[now that's an example of a stupid kind of "spoiler" - one that should be obvious now to everyone, since the movie it categorized as a ghost story in most guidebooks and websites, and .... I saw the movie on opening day, and there never was any mystery about what the "trick ending" was going to be; ...if you couldn't guess the ending by the first reel of 'The Sixth Sense'... I dunno -- maybe that should be one of the intelligence questions we ask people upon entering The Alibi Lounge, instead of the grammar quiz Hikari suggested?]

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 6:20:08 PM PDT
Hikari says:
I understand the impulse to want to avoid spoilers.

I have kept very mum to friends if they ask me about a movie I have seen that they haven't, ever since I accidentally revealed to a friend who had accompanied me to a screening of "Out of Africa" that Robert Redford's plane goes down. She was mad at me, and I still feel badly about it.

But--is there ANY leeway allowed when we are talking about historical events depicted in a film? I mean, Denys Finch-Hatton was a real personage, and it's well-documented that he died in the crash of his small plane. I think that's why James Cameron had to insert a fictional romance into his movie of Titanic--there had to be a modicum of suspense. Somebody that doesn't know the Titanic sank deserves to have their movie spoiled.

I like to be surprised as much as anyone by a film. But if one seeks out movie reviews, or willingly comes to a community devoted solely for the purpose of movie chat and still thinks they deserve to be kept in the dark about how certain movies play out . . I can't decide if it's naivete or what. That'd be like attending a conference of physicists and steadfastly refusing to hear anything about the laws of thermodynamics--wait, don't ruin it for me!! It's bound to come up.

If one doesn't want to take the remotest chance that they will find out more about a movie than they want to prior to seeing it, it's best to avoid talking or reading about it beforehand--just WATCH it already, and then you will be one of the initiated. If I accidentally stumble into a spoiler, I figure I invited it upon myself, so I don't really have a right to be mad.

Posted on May 9, 2012 6:21:59 PM PDT
"Everybody who has already wanted to see the movie has seen it by now."

The guy who said that is a fool. New moviegoers are born every year. And I sometimes meet adults who have never seen "Casablanca" or "The Godfather".

Posted on May 9, 2012 6:23:12 PM PDT
I haven't seen "The Passion of the Christ".

Does it have a happy ending, does anybody know?
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  53
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  May 8, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 5, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions