Collections which are inherently spoilers

[jgreenwood]

I agree with the objections which have been put by people here. It is disrespectful to other users to create Collections which spoil movies for people.

[iceblox]

I agree there are some strange collections out there, but to ban them? Maybe a solution is an extra option to be able to ignore collections (like you can ignore films). Then everybody can do what they want.

This sounds like a good option to have and would solve this problem!

[paulofilmo]

Inadvertently spotting that someone's head is going to get lopped off while browsing through a film's collections tab on the FIP, might just desensitize a director's all important intended shocking blow to the viewer's viscera.

But I don't think deletions are cool when the work and interest's been put in. I'm not too fussed personally, but I could see how an ignore function would pack some awesome (that section could do with some personal hygiene. )

[MmzHrrdb]

I don't want it both ways. I'm only saying that people don't have to look. Since I don't believe that my collections are spoilers, I don't need to have it both ways. There is only one way in my mind.

I'm always glad to see people with the inherent ability to see things from other peoples perspectives. Unfortunately in this forum said people are utterly nonexistent, which this post once again proves. Hoorah!

That said, your argument that if people wish not to know which film contains eye torture they needn't look at the "eye torture" collection is only half-valid. What you're basically saying that said people should never ever look at a collection page for a film they haven't yet seen out of fear of having this fact revealed to them. It's utterly ridiculous.

I say it again, I honestly don't see the use in collections like this. It's only one step away from the truly retarded IMDb plot keywords which serve little purpose and usually give little information.

My whole argument is that those collections are not "inherently spoliers", and no one has offered a reasonable counter argument. Your self-righteous commentary above does not apply. My definition of spoiler is giving away something from the movie that is so important that prior knowledge of it substantially, even entirely, ruins the enjoyment of the movie in question. I do not think my "wanting it both ways" is a valid statement, because djross has a point of view that I do not share and I do not believe the problem actually exists. I cannot "want" a way that is not real. Just because someone knows an act of violence will occur in a movie does not "inherently spoil" the movie. The Eye Violence collection, for example, does not indicate what sort of eye violence will take place or who it will happen to. djross asked me to remove a collection in the past and I agreed with his point of view. I removed the collection with no argument. I do not agree with him this time.

Just because you don't see the point of the collections does not mean you are right about this issue. Some movie watchers do see a point in these sorts of things. I'm sure many people who watch horror movies or are interested in movie violence in general might find my collections useful. It is not up to you to decide what the point of a collection is. If the point of something doesn't occur to you that doesn't mean there isn't one for someone else. I think your attitude is based more on snobbery than anything else.

It appears that only I get to be the disagreeable one here. The fact that you guys want me to remove my collections (without any reasonable argument) is perfectly fair in your minds, but that I disagree makes me inconsiderate.

[MmzHrrdb]

Inadvertently spotting that someone's head is going to get lopped off while browsing through a film's collections tab on the FIP, might just desensitize a director's all important intended shocking blow to the viewer's viscera.

But I don't think deletions are cool when the work and interest's been put in. I'm not too fussed personally, but I could see how an ignore function would pack some awesome (that section could do with some personal hygiene. )

I think the issue here might be more about the frequency a type of violence is seen in a movie. I could make a collection about people getting shot, and I doubt that would cause as much of a stir. There would be so many movies listed that the collection would be meaningless. Decapitation happens quite a bit as well, but not as many people have seen movies where someone gets decapitated. Perhaps that is why some people view decapitation as a big deal, where an individual who sees lots of gruesome movies would not consider such forms of violence to be a spoiler.

[paulofilmo]

Perhaps that is why some people view decapitation as a big deal, where an individual who sees lots of gruesome movies would not consider such forms of violence to be a spoiler.

Frequency is a fine point indeed. The psychological implications are interesting (what are the desensitized looking for if it's not shock?).

Assuming there's some truth to the inverse of the second clause in the quote above, do you still believe that there isn't an issue?

[MmzHrrdb]

Perhaps that is why some people view decapitation as a big deal, where an individual who sees lots of gruesome movies would not consider such forms of violence to be a spoiler.

Frequency is a fine point indeed. The psychological implications are interesting (what are the desensitized looking for if it's not shock?).

Assuming there's some truth to the inverse of the second clause in the quote above, do you still believe that there isn't an issue?

One needs to consider: "Am I responsible for those who do not have the same amount of experience with certain types of movies that I do?"

I do not believe that acts of violence are inherently spoilers, in most cases. If I were to make a collection entitled "Movie Where the Villain Dies By Decapitation", that would be something of a spoiler. In my opinion, though, certain genres of movie imply the possibility of certain actions within the movie. A Horror movie could quite probably include a decapitation, severing of a limb, or eye violence. That should surprise no one. In fact, any genre known for violence could include these things (to a lesser extent, perhaps). Is genre a spolier? Anybody walking in to a War movie can frequently count on a friend dying in the hero's arms, or someone getting blown up. Saving Private Ryan has just about every major act of violence one can think of, and even if I described the violence to someone who hasn't seen it would that necessarily lessen the impact? Would my listing of Saving Private Ryan in "Removed Extremity" collection lessen the "blow to the viewer's viscera"? Doubtful.

I can't be held responsible for every possible movie that someone might include in one of my collections. On rare occasions, sure, a decapitation might be a legitimate spolier. But most of the time, it's only a small part of the movie and it doesn't give away the whole show. Since my Decapitation collection doesn't specify anything about the head removal, then it's not giving anything away.

[paulofilmo]

There isn't a great need for me to chime on about this. I agree with the OP, perhaps sans the last two sentences.

I agree that the visceral potency of violence is subject to type, context, and viewer desensitization. I'm a little lost on how this is relevant to the original point.

I do believe that if I was going to watch a little arthouse film I had been excited about seeing, and for whatever reason I check the 'collections' tab on the FIP, to find something like 'eye violence' would spoil it a bit for me.
It would.

[MmzHrrdb]

There isn't a great need for me to chime on about this. I agree with the OP, perhaps sans the last two sentences.

I agree that the visceral potency of violence is subject to type, context, and viewer desensitization. I'm a little lost on how this is relevant to the original point.

I do believe that if I was going to watch a little arthouse film I had been excited about seeing, and for whatever reason I check the 'collections' tab on the FIP, to find something like 'eye violence' would spoil it a bit for me.
It would.

Its relevance is to point out that different people will develop a different outlook on this subject based on factors that do not necessarily have anything to do with whether a particular collection legitimately contains spoilers. Spoilers are in the eye of the beholder. For example, when I heard about the content of Irreversible (specific types of violence), I wanted to see the movie because prior knowledge of that content increased my interest in watching it. In fact, I want to see any movie that contains a notorious scene of violence. If someone told be that a movie contained a nasty scene of head violence, I would not be resentful. I would be grateful for the information. I can tell you that my enjoyment of Irreversible, or most any movie with violence, is not compromised by prior knowledge of the violent content. We clearly see this matter differently, but are you more correct in your perspective than I? Or is it a matter of preference? For movies made with skill and creativity, or that are genuinely entertaining, prior knowledge of particular content should not ruin the viewer's ability to enjoy them. If prior knowledge of a specific scene of violence makes or breaks a movie, then the movie probably ain't got much to it.

(Oh, I did remove a few of my collections based on the "Frequency Theory", such as "Scalping" and "Heart Ripped From Body.")

[djross]

I find your blithe dismissal of the concerns of other people remarkable, and counter to the collaborative ethic underlying much of Criticker. People (not only me) are clearly telling you that some of your collections have the potential to spoil movies. The notion that I might be grateful for being informed in advance about the specific content of scenes is absurd, and I'm certain its not only me who feels this way. It is a great pity that you are apparently deaf to everyone and everything except your own desire to continue to publicly exhibit the marvelous fruits of your labour. But clearly you have decided to dig in your heels, and there unfortunately seems little point continuing this discussion.