That's exactly what I was thinking. Why on earth would anyone want to deprive themselves of experiencing something for the first time? Yes, any movie that's only good the first time probably isn't a very good movie, but that doesn't mean that watching a movie without prior knowledge is worthless.
I may have been a bit hyperbolic, but your second remark only further confirms my interpretation. Comparing it to losing your virginity is an incredibly bad analogy. The quality of sex depends on you just as much as the other person, while the movie remains the same regardless of how many times you watch it. I wanted to pick apart your analogy more, but it's just so incredibly bad I can't be bothered, and I feel that kleinbl00 stated the case for watching things unspoiled better than I would have anyway.
I gave you an analogy equal in quality to your comment. What you get out of the movie depends on who you are when you watch it. I believe that movies, like sex, can improve and gain deeper meaning (or depth; as well as potentially grant more satisfaction) as a result of repeated encounters. That is the point of my analogy. The first time (viewing a film or gettin' it in) is bound to have a certain je ne sais quoi about it that no following time will ever possess. However, that in no way confers any measure of quality to that first time. It makes it special, not good. That is the point of my analogy. Your comment about sex taking two people is taking the analogy, and refusing to see the point. It would be like if you said "When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras," and me responding, "What if I just leave when I hear foot-beats?" Sure, sex takes two people and the quality of it does depend in some part (but not an equal part) on your partner. You want to apply that to movies, take "partner" and replace it with "director" or "actors" or "writers" or "producers" or whatever you want. The quality of a single film stays the same, yes, just as the quality of a single instance of sex would stay the same. But a Michael Bay movie is not a Tarantino flick is not a Cohen Bros. film. Quality of the movie depends on who makes it as much as how you experience and interpret it. And as for the viewer, where they are in life is going to impact how they receive the film. You can't put the same foot in the same river twice. - The river changes, but so do you.
Fair enough. I'll ignore the sex analogy, and I'll instead try to add something to the discussion you were having with kleinbl00: It seems to me that your reason for using spoilers is that you want to avoid bad works (henceforth I will just use movies as the example, but the same applies to books, TV shows, etc.). This isn't completely off the mark, but what I have an issue with is that it sounds like you're using it too much. It's true that you can avoid some bad movies by having them spoiled, but by doing that, you're also depriving yourself of the fresh experience of a genuinely good movie. Isn't this throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Sometimes, the suspense being built up can only be fully enjoyed once. That's not to say that it can't be enjoyed again, if the movie is genuinely good, but the emotional involvement is often dulled a little on subsequent viewings. By having everything spoiled, you are missing out on this heightened tension which is rooted in not knowing what's going to happen next. I'd argue that while it may be less of an intellectual excercise than watching a movie several times so you can get more details, it's a valuable EMOTIONAL experience. Isn't emotion the main component of art? The technical and intellectual aspects can be pleasing in their own right, but in my opinion they should be there to heighten, and add weight to, the emotional impact. Some movies can be quite dense, to the point where they only become fully enjoyable upon multiple viewings, but this is by no means the rule, and as you become a more experienced and sophisticated viewer, you can handle more and more complex works on the first go. The ones that you can't, you can just watch again if you think they're worth it, or read a critique/interpretation right after viewing them. Allow me to indulge in some armchair psychology: I think you like to have things spoiled so you can have more control over your experience. You fear wasting time on a sub-par work, and so you spoil all works, good and bad, for yourself, and the result is that you miss out on the highs of experiencing a great movie without prior knowledge, while simultaneously avoiding wasting your time on a disappointment. That is your prerogative. At the risk of sounding patronising, I suggest that you let go of these fears, and revel in the highs and lows that come with the loss of control. My intent isn't to put you down or anything, I'm just trying to express what I think are the advantages of watching things unspoiled. PS: Watching a bad movie can actually be quite enjoyable in its own right, if you afterwards try to describe WHY it's bad. I often go off on rants to my friends about how shit a movie is, and why, and I find that to be tremendously enjoyable.I gave you an analogy equal in quality to your comment.
To quote myself: For what it's worth, I frequently watch horror movies (if well done, capable of building great tension) and almost never spoil them. This is honestly usually because I don't preplan what I'm going to watch, I just throw it on, and then I sit back and enjoy the movie until it's done. I don't spoil things all the time by any means. I tend to start gently batting at my movie companions as the tension level rises. They usually find it amusing. I get that thrill and understand it. I think generally that horror seems to fulfill this urge in me and outside of horror, I don't want it. Just surmising. I would also say that the interpretation that I spoil things and then, instead of focusing on plot, focus on storytelling and technique, is not really accurate. I still focus on the plot and what's happening. I may know the broad strokes when I have spoiled something but I don't know the details and I care very much about details - I am one of those people that watches everything with subtitles on because I hate to miss even a single word, even though single lines of dialogue really are not that important to one's overall understanding of a movie. But I think knowing the broad strokes enables me to pay more attention to the fine details of the plot. To show myself: I am what I am, and I know what I am. I embrace my nature. P.S.: I have some favorite bad movies. And I find that discussions about media that you dislike - be it a book, a movie, or whatever - can actually help you realize more quickly and with more understanding both what you like, and what in general makes examples of that media strong, or weak. Book club discussions are awful when everyone likes the book. There is nothing to say. It is when you have differing opinions and complaints that you really get into something.There are times I have no urge to spoil books or movies. They are not frequent but they happen; usually it is a sign that I am enjoying the media, or that it simply doesn't matter to me much what the plot actually does.
Fair enough. I don't agree with how much you're using spoilers, but I understand your rationale. We don't all have to be the same. I also notice more details the second time I watch something, which I enjoy, but I also enjoy the first watch, for different reasons. My thinking can basically be summarised as: Why not both?
At the end of the day, the only person who truly knows how much I use spoilers in this thread is me. I would summarize my thinking as: There is no "should," "right," "wrong," or "properly" about how a person chooses to idly amuse themselves, especially in the context of TV, movies, or books. I've noticed an overarching sentiment in this thread that there is a right and wrong way to enjoy media. I think that the only point is to enjoy it. Would we have had as substantial a discussion if I started a thread and announced that I only read and watch things in reverse order (starting at the end and moving forward)? Why? If I enjoy it, then isn't the point of my leisure activity fulfilled? Would someone tell me I am "watching movies out of order too much," as if I was fundamentally missing something very important about the nature of movies by doing so? So what? This isn't a class and I'm not being graded. I do not have to demonstrate well-roundedness. I do not mean to antagonize but I think telling someone who enjoys movie spoilers that they "rely on it too much" is tantamount to telling a comedy buff they watch too many comedies. Who is monitoring my consumption habits and who even cares about them? - The answer is, outside of this thread, no one. And would no longer spoiling movies fundamentally change my life or psyche? the answer is: it would not, not a whit. You can tell me I should exercise more or should eat more vegetables or should save more money - these things I accept. They make an impact on my wellness, future happiness, stability, life goals, and etc. But to say someone should watch movies a certain way? Next you will be telling me there is a wrong way to use Hubski, or wear my hair, or go on vacation.
When I said I didn't agree with it, I didn't mean that you were wrong for doing it, just that I wouldn't want to do it myself. I actually don't have any issue with most of what you've responded to me, you're free to enjoy media as you please. Personally, I would rather give the author the benefit of the doubt, and be pleasantly surprised, while risking to be unpleasantly disappointed. If, for you, the pain of being disappointed isn't outweighed by the pleasure of watching something without prior knowledge, then by all means continue to read spoilers.