I've never had a good movie ruined by spoilers. Every movie I've said, "Ah, fuck! Really...

The excessive shitposting aside, you are correct. It's been proven that people actually enjoy movies more if they have been spoiled, because they're not wasting so much energy thinking about what the next twist or surprise could be

This has even been proven for fucking books. It's insane that people cling so heavily.

>Really? How fucking old are you?
Fuck off, it's you who autistic enough to not understand perspective most other people share even when explained the reasoning behind it as clearly as possible. I don't care what you do, go read the wikipedia synopsis before every movie if you like, why do you care if I like to do it the opposite way?

I understand their perspective; I don't understand what's holding them back from growing out of it.
I care only that you think you're entitled to say dumb shit like "you do you."

Perhaps you should grow out of getting buttblasted from innocuous phrases.

Yeah, I'm the one who's buttblasted, not the guy who made two consecutive replies out of a simple criticism.

Neither of you is buttblasted, arguing about stupid shit on Yea Forums is normal and takes no effort

When ever someone tells you to watch a movie but cant say anything about it because, it would spoil it, this always spoils it.

Attached: black hole.jpg (1600x900, 68K)

You have a small brain, it's okay, but it should be obvious that knowing the plot makes movies boring to most people.
No matter the mental gymnastics you want to pull to pretend you have "mature" taste, only uberdorks enjoy watching movies if they already know what happens. Sorry

Oh, I thought we were having a discussion about a subject. Guess I should have just called you a pleb and left, to prevent looking mad.

>you see, only [x] do [y].
Good reasoning. Cogent argument.
No, we ARE having a discussion about a subject, and we're on a fucking tangent where I tell you that some of the shit you said is stupid, and you tell me it's not, and you get to decide whether or not that's a fucking okay thing for you. I'm doing me. You do you.

>Good reasoning. Cogent argument.
Don't feed the troll. I know it's hard to not try and shut him down with logic but try to put yourself in his shoes
If you make a post like "everyone who disagrees with me is a retard" do you really want to have a debate? And if no one responds to it, how do you feel?

u mad lol

What's the purpose of that circuit? Unless one of the resistors is an unlabelled load, it does nothing

technically no circuit does anything except make electricity flow through things

You do.

Attached: 1536840037846.gif (499x499, 44K)

I think this was some bullshit "solve for x" bit from a previous exam.
This is only valid reasoning if I'm the only one allowed to respond. Today's trolls are different: They first convince themselves of their shitty position...and then forget they were faking it.

True, but often some of those things have some noticeable effect on the outside world.

"Other people feed the troll anyway" is not an argument for you doing it. In this specific case, you'll notice no one else has responded to his post, which is exactly how you should have handled it

>tfw you submit post too early
And it's not like you're gonna be able to change his mind if he has really convinced himself his position is legitimate instead of just bait

Good enough, as long as you can convince me AND EVERYONE ELSE that they're actually trolling. The people I've met online really have me convinced the other way so far.

rectifier

>can convince me AND EVERYONE ELSE that they're actually trolling
This works if they're just presenting an opinion which you think maybe other people will take seriously, in which case it is fine to say "don't take this guy seriously"
But his post basically consisted of an unprovable claim that by its very definition leads to No True Scotsman the instant you try to counter it
There is absolutely no reason to engage with a post like that instead of just leaving it hanging, starved for attention

Depends on the spoiler and how important that piece of knowledge is to the movie and how it reveals it

Spoilers can reduce a great or even amazing movie down to the level of simply good

I knew almost everything that was going to happen in Titanic including that fictional character's death, but it was fucking mindblowingly good all the same

My dickhead friend spoiled me on the big Fight Club twist and while I can see that it's a great movie I'm never going to regard it as such because I absorbed 90% of the experience knowing I was being played

Attached: Wonka.jpg (120x120, 4K)

How would not knowing the twist in Fight Club have increased your appreciation in the movie? The reveal is still greatly done and the only difference is that you could look at the scenes right away and notice the little weird details that hint at it right away instead of having to think about it after the film was over

>fight club
>great movie
This is an 18 plus board, user.

>I've never had a good movie ruined by spoilers.
Autist.

If you don't experience a movie the way it was intended by the director, then you are not experiencing the movie.

Spoilers kill a whole section of the movie, as it prevents you from exploring, thinking, etc, simply because you already know. The experience is completely different and that's why intelligent people hate being spoilt.

You, on the other hand, can't see the difference, because you don't think much in either case. You absolute degenerate.

>How would not knowing the twist in Fight Club have increased your appreciation in the movie?
This level of autism should be banned. This board would be so much better without the fucking autists.

This is correct. This is why all critical analysis of all artistic works are done based solely a single viewing. Any analysis based on more than a single viewing would be compromised by the knowledge of the previous viewing.

There is nothing else to discuss when your only argument is "I don't see it like that" and thus people should grow out of it for some reason(???). I explained why experiencing things unspoiled can be great, you told me you don't get much out of that, what else is there to say? I guess you got offended by "you do you" because you just REALLY don't like people doing things different as demonstrated by your apparent bafflement that your friends don't share your feelings and your "fuck off with this" OP.

Maybe he's one of those "aphantasia" people...

>How would not knowing the twist in Fight Club have increased your appreciation in the movie?

Why even go to the trouble of hiding the twist in plain sight in the first place? Why not just tell the viewer from the outset?

Think about it

Attached: Maverick_1994_original_film_art_2000x.jpg (1536x2260, 383K)

What you're describing is the equivalent of the placebo effect. You have no actual evidence that you would enjoy a movie more were you to have no information going into it compared to if you did. You simply imagine this must be the case.

This is funnier after you know because you can see the frustration in Garner's face everytime Mel misquotes him.

Fight Club really isn't a film that's about "whoooooa so that was the solution all along!" It's about some guy completely fucking dissociating due to the stress in his life. So you'll be perfectly fine knowing the twist from the start
In Maverick or Lucky Number Slevin, the point is the ride that the film takes you on. They pretty specifically tell the viewer that there is some fuckery going on and it's satisfying to see it play out

You're right, and it says volumes about the fact that Endgame is only worth watching if you get to have your lizardbrain soap opera sensibilities tickled by arbitrary surprises
I think most of this just comes down to Disney's marketing department trying to emphasize the idea that this is more than just a movie, it's a cultural event

Slevin is just some shitty Yojimbo knockoff. I don't know why anyone would care. It doesn't even match the other Yojimbo knockoff with Bruce Willis.

>Slevin is just some shitty Yojimbo knockoff
Did you watch more than half an hour of it?

But what if Captain America was African American and Iron Man was a girl?

Do you not know Yojimbo or something? Alternatively Fistful of Dollars or Last Man Standing. It's the same story in all of them. If anything, it's a speaks to spoilers being bullshit. If spoilers mattered, you wouldn't have such success in repeating the same story over and over with only superficial differences.

I don't remember Sanjuro only arriving in the city in the first place because he was looking for revenge. Also, Kurosawa didn't invent the idea of double crossing two people at once you fucking weeaboo
>If spoilers mattered, you wouldn't have such success in repeating the same story over and over
Yeah I'm sure the main target audience of Fistful of Dollars were people who had seen Yojimbo before

The twist in Fight Club is entirely relevant to the theme of the movie. Norton spends the movie living in the shadow of -and aspiring to be- someone he thinks he should be, but already is. He's initially dissatisfied with what he imagines himself to be and redeems himself with that realisation.

If you already know the twist in advance, the film's lesson isn't taught, it's told.

>I don't remember Sanjuro only arriving in the city in the first place because he was looking for revenge
That would be the superficial difference referred to in the previous post dipshit. The twist in Slevin is completely irrelevant. You could replace it with virtually anything and nothing would change. Any reason for Slevin to give a shit about taking out two gangs would do.

>Kurosawa didn't invent the idea of double crossing two people at once you fucking weeaboo
No, shit. That doesn't change the fact that Slevin, Fistful, LMS, and Yojimbo all clearly share the same plot.

>Yeah I'm sure the main target audience of Fistful of Dollars were people who had seen Yojimbo before
The order you see the movies in is irrelevant. Seeing one doesn't diminish the experience of seeing any other.

>Seeing one doesn't diminish the experience of seeing any other
Then why the fuck does it matter that they supposedly have the same plot if the experience stays the same

How would you even prove something like that? We're talking about feelings after all. Or are you really saying "nah you didn't ACTUALLY enjoy it that much, you just think you did". What kind of evidence do you have that you would enjoy a movie more if you WEREN'T spoiled? Not like you have any say in the matter at that point. If anything, people who see movies unspoiled have more room to talk about this, since after a second viewing they've experienced the movie both ways. And like I said at the beginning, you can rewatch a movie as many times as you want, but you'll never get another first viewing. TGTBATU is a beautifully made movie, one of my absolute favorites, but I never get the same amount of tension out of the climax as I did on that very first time. You don't get this out of every movie of course, some movies are better during rewatches and some don't have anything to offer after you've seen them once. But there is always the chance it might happen, and that's why I prefer to see movies blind and let the movie itself reveal its thing for me, instead of having some outside source tell me beforehand.

Really curious what that circuit is for

I completely disagree. Knowing the twist ahead of time still lets you experience the character's journey the same way as if you didn't know.
>the film's lesson isn't taught, it's told
This sounds profound but the more I think about it, the less it means. Every film's lesson is told. If anything, the protagonist can learn something and the audience can experience his learning by immersing themselves in him, but they can't actually learn anything unless they specifically think to themselves "wow I should just be my best self", which is completely independent of whether the movie surprised you with it at the end.
Plus, in this case, it completely depends upon the audience's wish for Edward Norton to be like Tyler. And you shouldn't wish that for him, Tyler is a fucking piece of shit human being. The only thing Ed really looks up to is the freedom to do whatever the fuck he wants thing, and Tyler uses that freedom for literal domestic terrorism

>What kind of evidence do you have that you would enjoy a movie more if you WEREN'T spoiled?
meant "wouldn't enjoy" of course

Only plot point mental midgets would disagree.

You can read the plot synopsis of Tarkovsky's Mirror for a week straight and you still won't be "spoiled", you literally can't spoil a Tarkovsky film since it's the perfect complete use of the film medium.

Because if spoilers fucking mattered, every time you watched another of these movies, it'd be worse than the last. How the fuck are you so retarded that you need this spelled out? The fact that so many movies can be made with virtually identical plots and still be successful is a testament to the fact that spoilers don't count for shit. What makes a story compelling has nothing to do with whether you know where it's going.

>and still be successful
How the fuck are you so retarded that you need this spelled out? None of the people who saw Fistful in theaters had seen Yojimbo

Of course stories are taught rather than simply told. A good storyteller will explore all avenues of their subject matter leading to relevant questions, and ask their audience to put themselves in the protagonist's shoes and present them with problems involving difficult decisions. If you already know how the story is going to end, those questions are answered and decisions informed, and the audience is cheated out of their emotional investment.

Attached: images.jpg (259x195, 7K)

Literally has nothing to do with the argument, brainlet. Try again.

Spoilers only really work if the story has a twist. A twist that upon realizing it changes your perspective on how you view the film.

A good example is the 6th sense. If you know the twist to the film, you watch the movie in an entirely different way.

>spoilers don't matter because people watch the same story again anyway, just look how successful this Yojimbo ripoff is
>but people who made it successful didn't see Yojimbo
>LITERALLY!

>The order you see the movies in is irrelevant. Seeing one doesn't diminish the experience of seeing any other.
Try to keep up, retard.

Still making less sense the more I think about it. You said earlier that Ed is aspiring to be someone he wants to be, so according to this Story as Teacher framework, the audience should be asking itself "how could I become someone I aspire to be?" But according to the twist, the answer to that would be "you already are".

This is backwards, though. Take the Matrix as an easy example. Once you know where Neo ends up, you start noticing all sorts of little things that enhance the experience. Neo's conversation with his boss–"You think you are special, that the rules don't apply to you"–or the oracle upon being asked what he's waiting for–"Your next life, maybe." It makes the movie more rewarding, not less.

But didn't people hate Last Man Standing because of just that? It didn't have much new to offer? We've already seen it, twice, depending if you're a fan of both westerns and samurai films.

Oh so what you're saying is Yojimbo made most of its box office income from US citizens who saw it after seeing Fistful
Sure

>Last Man Standing
The Tim Allen sitcom? What the fuck

Last Man Standing is a 1996 American gangster-action film written and directed by Walter Hill and starring Bruce Willis, Christopher Walken, and Bruce Dern. It is a credited remake of Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo.

No. That isn't why LMS performed poorly at all.

>successful art is defined by box office
Please try to be less of a fucking retard, user. We're talking about what makes successful storytelling, not what brings in tickets. There is a reason certain stories are told over and over again. It's why you get a new Robin Hood movie every few years. Your position that spoilers are inherently damaging to the experience would seem to be easily contradicted by the fact that we have numerous timeless stories that are repeated over and over again..

Why did it perform poorly if it's the exact same story with mere superficial changes? It's a retelling of a succesful story

He aspires superficially, both materialistically at first then spiritually later, and the movie makes the latter seem attractive. But Fincher eventually comes clean and says it's all bullshit. He takes the audience on that fun mentor/student ride and throws it under bus- it never happened. You can only learn from others to a point. At the end of the day you have to know who you are and be responsible for yourself.

And yeah, the impact of this revelation is definitely lessened if you know he's hallucinating Pitt from the start.

Attached: (R)__Faculty(1).jpg (1050x800, 568K)

>The film received mixed to negative critical reviews.[citation needed] It has a 37% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 30 reviews.[7] Common recurring complaints address the oppressive and depressing atmosphere of the film; the flat, almost monotonous personality of Willis' character between gunfights; and the film's Pyrrhic victory finale.
It wasn't capeshit enough.

I see what you mean but I still have to disagree. By the point the twist happens, that mentor/student relationship has long since destroyed, not only because Ed is quite prominently kept out of a lot of the operations but also because he long ago realized that Tyler is not a role model in his insanity

been destroyed*