To Spoil or Not to Spoil

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

To Spoil or Not to Spoil

The following contains spoilers. Duh.

Read Full Article

I still don't get the 'Elsa is a lesbian' thing. I don't have a problem with it, but I still just don't see where the idea arose from in the first place. If it makes you happy to interpret that it that way, fine by me, but I don't follow the train of reasoning that led to that particular interpretation.

I think marketers are much more guilty of spoiling a movie than film critics. Say what you will about Abrams' Mystery Box; these days trailers and commercials give away much more.

Falterfire:
I still don't get the 'Elsa is a lesbian' thing.

I don't think it's so much 'Elsa is a lesbian' as 'Elsa's transformation is a metaphor for coming out'. Which apparently devastates the countryside?

MovieBob:
I still don't plan to give away surprises or ruin the audience's experience unnecessarily, but I'm also not going to start treating every single detail of every single movie like a scratch ticket "just in case" someone is trying to know absolutely nothing (but is still, for some reason, watching a review).

I never quite understood that either. There's a big difference between revealing EVERYTHING about a story and touching on important moments that define what makes a story good or bad. IS someone is looking for a review to tell them whether something is worth watching that is only 1 word? Yes or No? It seems most often people expect a long rant on why something sucks, but suddenly if it's good they don't want to hear anything at all (but still complain when there's nothing there?).

At the end of the day though, reading a review and avoiding spoilers is exactly like saying, "Tell me all about this movie, but don't ACTUALLY tell me anything about this movie."

Moviebob:
B. don't really care all that much about plot details as a major part of your cinematic experience. I can't stress the reality of "B" enough - for a lot of critics, actually being "involved" in the narrative on an emotional level (as opposed to analyzing how the beats and pacing function mechanically) is the equivalent of watching pro-wrestling and actually believing that the geopolitical realities of Iranian/U.S. relations would be effected by Sgt. Slaughter's battle with The Iron Sheik.

As a lifetime study and practitioner of movies, their construction, writing, acting, effects and everything involved. Working day in day out getting on getting stuff made and seeing the gritty, shitty side of the business involving temper tantrums on set and in the edit suite, backstabbings and the deconstruction of any glamour the movie business might hold. I find this statement to be particularly depressing and indicative of the attitude of a lot of movie critics. Worse when they act as if they are martyring their love and enjoyment on the altar of journalism. Boo I say, boo!

Lono Shrugged:

Moviebob:
B. don't really care all that much about plot details as a major part of your cinematic experience. I can't stress the reality of "B" enough - for a lot of critics, actually being "involved" in the narrative on an emotional level (as opposed to analyzing how the beats and pacing function mechanically) is the equivalent of watching pro-wrestling and actually believing that the geopolitical realities of Iranian/U.S. relations would be effected by Sgt. Slaughter's battle with The Iron Sheik.

As a lifetime study and practitioner of movies, their construction, writing, acting, effects and everything involved. Working day in day out getting on getting stuff made and seeing the gritty, shitty side of the business involving temper tantrums on set and in the edit suite, backstabbings and the deconstruction of any glamour the movie business might hold. I find this statement to be particularly depressing and indicative of the attitude of a lot of movie critics. Worse when they act as if they are martyring their love and enjoyment on the altar of journalism. Boo I say, boo!

Honestly i'm surprised that he feels this way, it's a bt sad. I'm pretty sure that a lot of reviewers are very capable of getting invested on an emotional level, just look at guys like Mark Kermode, who obviously loves being emotionally invested (atleast you can tell that it happens to him a lot if you follow his reviews) and i sure don't hope (Or think) that he's the only critic with that approach.

With that said, i think critics should talk about the movie, if that requires spoilers then spoil away, If people don't want to heat about the movies, they shouldn't read/watch reviews, they should stick with the overview at Rottentomatoes or Metacritic.

MrBaskerville:
Snip

You know, Mark Kermode sprung to mind as a guy who is totally passionate about films. If you have ever read one of his books you will see a guy who has an inexhaustible love of film. Sometimes he rubs me up the wrong way, but his opinion always comes from a good place and if you listen to any of his reviews, he is pretty good on spoilers.

I think that an unspoiled movie is a precious thing. You watch a movie and your expectations are subverted and you are surprised. You FEEL something. I love it when people get all pissy and protective about spoilers. It means that sense of wonder is not gone.

Why read the Game Of Thrones wiki and spoil all the plot points? To feel like you have one over on people? It has to be remembered that all the actors, effects and robot dinosaurs are there to serve the plot first and foremost. Saying that you DON'T watch a movie for the plot is like eating a delicious meal and then vomiting it up later. You don't get any nourishment that way. It's all sensation and forgettable crap then.

Here is a spoiler free 6 line review of Into Darkness. I could write for 2 pages on this, it's piss easy.

"Star Trek Into Darkness has a rocky script, with ham handed pacing, structure and senseless plot points, yet it's sense of momentum and strong supporting cast make it an easy watch. Fans of the original series will find themselves frustrated at the jarring callbacks to the original series. While new viewers may feel lost in the continuity. The enjoyment in this film is found somewhere in-between the turgid plot and the mostly enjoyable character performances of the crew. Overall, one gets the sense of a great adventure movie. Bogged down in too many ideas and not enough time or plot scope to fulfil them all. Standout performance really has to go to Benedict Cumberbatch for his charismatic portrayal of the enigmatic terrorist John Harrison. An enjoyable but flawed action/ adventure film. Worth a look."

Lono Shrugged:

MrBaskerville:
Snip

You know, Mark Kermode sprung to mind as a guy who is totally passionate about films. If you have ever read one of his books you will see a guy who has an inexhaustible love of film. Sometimes he rubs me up the wrong way, but his opinion always comes from a good place and if you listen to any of his reviews, he is pretty good on spoilers.

I think that an unspoiled movie is a precious thing. You watch a movie and your expectations are subverted and you are surprised. You FEEL something. I love it when people get all pissy and protective about spoilers. It means that sense of wonder is not gone.

Why read the Game Of Thrones wiki and spoil all the plot points? To feel like you have one over on people? It has to be remembered that all the actors, effects and robot dinosaurs are there to serve the plot first and foremost. Saying that you DON'T watch a movie for the plot is like eating a delicious meal and then vomiting it up later. You don't get any nourishment that way. It's all sensation and forgettable crap then.

Here is a spoiler free 6 line review of Into Darkness. I could write for 2 pages on this, it's piss easy.

"Star Trek Into Darkness has a rocky script, with ham handed pacing, structure and senseless plot points, yet it's sense of momentum and strong supporting cast make it an easy watch. Fans of the original series will find themselves frustrated at the jarring callbacks to the original series. While new viewers may feel lost in the continuity. The enjoyment in this film is found somewhere in-between the turgid plot and the mostly enjoyable character performances of the crew. Overall, one gets the sense of a great adventure movie. Bogged down in too many ideas and not enough time or plot scope to fulfil them all. Standout performance really has to go to Benedict Cumberbatch for his charismatic portrayal of the enigmatic terrorist John Harrison. An enjoyable but flawed action/ adventure film. Worth a look."

I'd say it's not just about the plot and the twists, it's just as much about the journey, I remember rewatching American History X last year, i know what happens in the end, but that didn't stop me from being 100% invested in the movie, at some point i even caught myself thinking that "Maybe things would turn out for the better this time". I also know a lot of what is going to happen in season 3-4 of Game Of Thrones but it's still very engaging and exciting to see how everything unfolds and watching the characters interact and evolve. I believe that twists and turns can be just as exciting even when you know they are coming, if they are well executed and if the movie manages to engage you emotionally. But if it can be avoided that's probably preferable, there are just some events in certain movies that are important if you are going to discuss the story in an interesting way and i think Kermode and Ebert comes off as the ideal examples of how to do this.

Though it can also hold a certain charm to be kept in the dark, which is why i persobally avoid some reviews. There's no point in me reading about movies by directors that i follow, cause i'm going to watch their latest movie no matter what.

TiberiusEsuriens:

MovieBob:
I still don't plan to give away surprises or ruin the audience's experience unnecessarily, but I'm also not going to start treating every single detail of every single movie like a scratch ticket "just in case" someone is trying to know absolutely nothing (but is still, for some reason, watching a review).

I never quite understood that either. There's a big difference between revealing EVERYTHING about a story and touching on important moments that define what makes a story good or bad. IS someone is looking for a review to tell them whether something is worth watching that is only 1 word? Yes or No? It seems most often people expect a long rant on why something sucks, but suddenly if it's good they don't want to hear anything at all (but still complain when there's nothing there?).

At the end of the day though, reading a review and avoiding spoilers is exactly like saying, "Tell me all about this movie, but don't ACTUALLY tell me anything about this movie."

I don't think people come to the Escapist for one-word criticism; people like Yahtzee and Bob make a big deal about how they aren't here to produce yes/no evaluations, but to actually talk about something. That said, there are plenty of ways to talk about something without spoilers. LonoShrugged gives a good example of this with Star Trek: Into Darkness, by talking about what the movie is without revealing what the movie is about.

I'm one of those who is bothered when MovieBob starts his review with "This review contains spoilers." I know that he's good enough at his job that he can talk a bit about something without spoiling it. I don't mind if he does the mid-video "spoilers from here on out", but having the whole thing be a spoiler smacks of doing exactly what he says critics don't do: focusing on the plot rather than every other aspect of the movie. It's not expecting him to keep totally silent if I think the movie might be good, or not saying anything about the movie; it's asking a critic if they can talk about a movie without revealing the important moments.

I personally try to be cautious of spoilers but I know myself I don't think they have quite the impact that people think they do. I live in a small town and we have a one screen movie theater meaning that I rarely get to see things the week they come out, usually it's weeks or even months later. but with netflix and hulu I can watch TV whenever i please. When the new captain america movie came out I held out watching agent's of shield for as long as I could but reached the point where it was going to expire from my hulu que. 2 months later when we finally got to see winter soldier I had seen the finally of agents and knew two of the biggest spoilers of the movie. I still enjoyed the heck out of it and didn't really feel like I had lost anything.

I also had one of the first big twists of Attack on titan spoiled for me and it didn't ruin my enjoyment of it one bit.

I think good twists are in a way spoiler proof. oh yeah it is best to experience them cold but if knowing the twist spoils something than there would be no point in rewatching them. I've rewatched Attack on titian all the way through and i can't tell you how many times I've rewatched Sixth sense or the usual suspects, movies built around that one big twist. I know i'm late to the game but i just started watching Game of thrones and when I finished season one if i hadn't had season 2 right there I might have gone ahead and rewatched season 1 right away. if something is good spoilers take less from it than people think. If somethings bad than I shouldn't be watching it anyways so spoilers don't matter.

If everything is a spoiler, nothing is a spoiler.

Thunderous Cacophony:
I'm one of those who is bothered when MovieBob starts his review with "This review contains spoilers." I know that he's good enough at his job that he can talk a bit about something without spoiling it. I don't mind if he does the mid-video "spoilers from here on out", but having the whole thing be a spoiler smacks of doing exactly what he says critics don't do: focusing on the plot rather than every other aspect of the movie. It's not expecting him to keep totally silent if I think the movie might be good, or not saying anything about the movie; it's asking a critic if they can talk about a movie without revealing the important moments.

There does seem to be a big shift in review styles. I don't even know what "Review" means anymore. Everyone is coming in expecting something different.

I'm sure there's a middle ground somewhere, but it is still pretty hard to find. I definitely don't like how every TV Show review lately is just a 5 page plot synopsis of an episode of Game of Thrones - I'm hear reading to see how my opinions match up with other peoples' thoughts. That said, it is pretty much impossible to discuss deep episode thoughts without directly pointing at a big event in one way or another since a lot of reviews now are about sharing reactions (it's hard to share a reaction without talking about what you're reacting to). With the increasing relevance of comics and books being transformed into epic shows and movies there isn't much room for speculation, either. Most thoughts that can be said have been said tens of years ago, leading reviews to now be more about plot differences, or characters that should have been there or others you'd like to see in the future.

At the end of the day I don't care at all about spoilers, (I personally assume that risk simply by clicking the link) I just want it to be something - anything - more than just a bland rehash of the movie.

Falterfire:
I still don't get the 'Elsa is a lesbian' thing. I don't have a problem with it, but I still just don't see where the idea arose from in the first place. If it makes you happy to interpret that it that way, fine by me, but I don't follow the train of reasoning that led to that particular interpretation.

I get where people are coming from with the 'Elsa is a lesbian'... thing, I think they're extremely wrong, since she comes off as far more asexual than anything, but I get it. Of course, since it's a Disney movie, I don't really pay attention to the characters' sexualities. They just don't factor in for me.
There was also that big falderall about the blonde guy in the sauna who everyone assumed was Oaken's boyfriend with no damn proof. Everyone has that one family friend who the family calls 'Aunt/Uncle X', who aren't related... and that was my read of the character, a family friend. People were extremely eager to read non-hetero into every character in the movie.

As long as "spoliers" are flagged, then its fine. But then trailers are always spoiling movies for me when they show every thing. I remember the trailer for a movie where they showed the twist which was the phone calls the baby sitter was getting were from within the house.

Firstly, if a review is tagged as having spoilers (which you're generally pretty good about doing), then a person loses any right to be upset that you spoiled the movie for them. Actually, let me rephrase that, they can be as upset as they want to be, but they lose the right to complain about it and expect anyone to sympathize with them. Secondly, if someone genuinely wants to "know absolutely nothing" about a movie before going in, then why are they watching reviews in the first place? A review (generally) is there for when you're on the fence about something; if you're adamant about going in with absolutely no details, then it seems your mind is already made-up.

Falterfire:
I still don't get the 'Elsa is a lesbian' thing. I don't have a problem with it, but I still just don't see where the idea arose from in the first place. If it makes you happy to interpret that it that way, fine by me, but I don't follow the train of reasoning that led to that particular interpretation.

Basically, 'she doesn't have a boyfriend'. Or is not interested in boys during the movie's runtime. People are so used to female characters being like that, that Elsa comes off as strange. Therefore the only explanation for her behaviour (ie not being boy crazy like most female characters) is that she's a lesbian!

Something like that, I don't know.

CelestDaer:

Falterfire:
I still don't get the 'Elsa is a lesbian' thing. I don't have a problem with it, but I still just don't see where the idea arose from in the first place. If it makes you happy to interpret that it that way, fine by me, but I don't follow the train of reasoning that led to that particular interpretation.

I get where people are coming from with the 'Elsa is a lesbian'... thing, I think they're extremely wrong, since she comes off as far more asexual than anything, but I get it. Of course, since it's a Disney movie, I don't really pay attention to the characters' sexualities. They just don't factor in for me.
There was also that big falderall about the blonde guy in the sauna who everyone assumed was Oaken's boyfriend with no damn proof. Everyone has that one family friend who the family calls 'Aunt/Uncle X', who aren't related... and that was my read of the character, a family friend. People were extremely eager to read non-hetero into every character in the movie.

It'a less of a case of "Here's-the-message-under-the-story-the-writer-is-sending" and more of "Here's-the-message-I-think-the-writer-intended". Some people like to crowbar in their own meanings into stories, regardless of if or what the author's intended meaning really is.

I don't think people mind if Bob uses spoilers with appropriate warning. I think sometimes it bothers them if that is all there is to his review. Some people trust his opinion and simply want to know whether he thinks the movie is good enough to sink money into watching on the big screen.

With Maleficent as an example, he could start saying something like "I was not expecting this movie. Especially not from Disney. Jolie's performance is excellent, and the movie has a surprisingly dark and Gothic undertone. Go watch it!" and then go "Spoilers warning from here on..."

He has done it with some of his reviews, but lately he just tends to lead with "Spoilers!" at the beginning.

Darth_Payn:

CelestDaer:

Falterfire:
I still don't get the 'Elsa is a lesbian' thing. I don't have a problem with it, but I still just don't see where the idea arose from in the first place. If it makes you happy to interpret that it that way, fine by me, but I don't follow the train of reasoning that led to that particular interpretation.

I get where people are coming from with the 'Elsa is a lesbian'... thing, I think they're extremely wrong, since she comes off as far more asexual than anything, but I get it. Of course, since it's a Disney movie, I don't really pay attention to the characters' sexualities. They just don't factor in for me.
There was also that big falderall about the blonde guy in the sauna who everyone assumed was Oaken's boyfriend with no damn proof. Everyone has that one family friend who the family calls 'Aunt/Uncle X', who aren't related... and that was my read of the character, a family friend. People were extremely eager to read non-hetero into every character in the movie.

It'a less of a case of "Here's-the-message-under-the-story-the-writer-is-sending" and more of "Here's-the-message-I-think-the-writer-intended". Some people like to crowbar in their own meanings into stories, regardless of if or what the author's intended meaning really is.

Elsa has something innate about her that she is told she has to keep hidden. She fears that if people find out, including her relatives, she will be hated, and indeed when she is 'outed' this happens. She then comes to terms with her power being a part of her, and she is accepted by her family and society, and can be openly herself.

Even if the writers didn't intend anything like that, it's a narrative many non-straight people can identify with, and it even gives her the happy ending where she is accepted, so it's easy to see why this would resonate with people.

We know nothing about Elsa's sexuality, though, since it's in no way touched upon in the movie.

I find that you have a good sense of what constitutes a spoiler and what doesn't. I also find that I generally agree more with your analyses of movies than most other critics. Just keep doing what you're doing.

WhiteTigerShiro:
Firstly, if a review is tagged as having spoilers (which you're generally pretty good about doing), then a person loses any right to be upset that you spoiled the movie for them. Actually, let me rephrase that, they can be as upset as they want to be, but they lose the right to complain about it and expect anyone to sympathize with them. Secondly, if someone genuinely wants to "know absolutely nothing" about a movie before going in, then why are they watching reviews in the first place? A review (generally) is there for when you're on the fence about something; if you're adamant about going in with absolutely no details, then it seems your mind is already made-up.

This.

It annoys the hell out of me people coming into Bob's threads for -every- review complaining that it has spoilers.
And thumbs up, Bob. Good post.

Pyrian:

Falterfire:
I still don't get the 'Elsa is a lesbian' thing.

I don't think it's so much 'Elsa is a lesbian' as 'Elsa's transformation is a metaphor for coming out'. Which apparently devastates the countryside?

That and she's a Disney princess who didn't get a love interest, so of course she's a lesbian. Merida got the same treatment - not wanting to get married to a complete stranger at sixteen means you're a lesbian, apparently.

Batroc the Leaper isn't a spoiler, he's a selling point.

http://www.wired.com/2011/08/spoilers-dont-spoil-anything/

I think getting upset about spoilers is one of those things that people have just decided is impolite and they are going to get upset about. It's like people obsessed with table manners getting upset that you cut more than one piece of meat at a time. But it's getting upset for the sake of getting upset without any real consideration of whether it has an impact on you or your enjoyment of the story (most of the time, it doesn't).

Now there are those reveals that do have a significant emotional impact. "I am your father", "I see dead people", "And like that... poof he's gone". Actual "twists" that greatly alter your perception of what preceded it. But, in all honesty, those are few and far between. Most of the plot devices called "twists" these days aren't really.

Tumedus:
http://www.wired.com/2011/08/spoilers-dont-spoil-anything/

I think getting upset about spoilers is one of those things that people have just decided is impolite and they are going to get upset about. It's like people obsessed with table manners getting upset that you cut more than one piece of meat at a time. But it's getting upset for the sake of getting upset without any real consideration of whether it has an impact on you or your enjoyment of the story (most of the time, it doesn't).

Now there are those reveals that do have a significant emotional impact. "I am your father", "I see dead people", "And like that... poof he's gone". Actual "twists" that greatly alter your perception of what preceded it. But, in all honesty, those are few and far between. Most of the plot devices called "twists" these days aren't really.

Couldn't agree with you more. If a movie or show or whatever has what most people consider a "spoiler" revealed to you before hand and you are upset, it's probably more a problem with the person upset or the work more then anything else.

Case in point: because of the week and a half release gap between Europe and North America I had most of the major parts of the plot for The Winter Soldier revealed to me before I entered. Did it effect my ability to enjoy the movie? Nope. In fact I was so into the plot I forgot most of what I'd been told.

Personally, I feel as though someone claiming a spoiler will ruin it for them is about the same as saying they won't be able to rewatch it.

CelestDaer:

Falterfire:
I still don't get the 'Elsa is a lesbian' thing. I don't have a problem with it, but I still just don't see where the idea arose from in the first place. If it makes you happy to interpret that it that way, fine by me, but I don't follow the train of reasoning that led to that particular interpretation.

I get where people are coming from with the 'Elsa is a lesbian'... thing, I think they're extremely wrong, since she comes off as far more asexual than anything, but I get it. Of course, since it's a Disney movie, I don't really pay attention to the characters' sexualities. They just don't factor in for me.
There was also that big falderall about the blonde guy in the sauna who everyone assumed was Oaken's boyfriend with no damn proof. Everyone has that one family friend who the family calls 'Aunt/Uncle X', who aren't related... and that was my read of the character, a family friend. People were extremely eager to read non-hetero into every character in the movie.

I don't think anyone (well, anyone working based on the evidence actually in the movie) believes that Elsa is literally homosexual. Most of the commentary I have heard/read online and discussed with friends doesn't make any judgement on whether the character of Elsa is gay within the movie. Instead, they point out that her personal story arc (and, obviously, the song "Let It Go") comes off as a metaphor for the experience many in-the-closet homosexuals experience.

The important part to understand there is the concept of metaphor. To take a random example, magic for Willow in Seasons 5 and 6 of Buffy is a pretty obvious metaphor for drug addiction. That doesn't make Willow a drug user in the universe. In the same way, no one I know feels that Elsa is gay in-universe beyond the "well, her sexuality isn't made explicit, so it's possible".

Pyrian:

Falterfire:
I still don't get the 'Elsa is a lesbian' thing.

I don't think it's so much 'Elsa is a lesbian' as 'Elsa's transformation is a metaphor for coming out'. Which apparently devastates the countryside?

image

but seriously you can't go anywhere without spoilers, Bob always slaps a big SPOILER ALERT ahead of any review that's gonna feature the dreaded spoiler, and if you want to go and see a movie, read a book, play a game or watch a tv show without knowing the plot twists... don't click on a link that says SPOILER ALERT!

Lieju:

Darth_Payn:

CelestDaer:

I get where people are coming from with the 'Elsa is a lesbian'... thing, I think they're extremely wrong, since she comes off as far more asexual than anything, but I get it. Of course, since it's a Disney movie, I don't really pay attention to the characters' sexualities. They just don't factor in for me.
There was also that big falderall about the blonde guy in the sauna who everyone assumed was Oaken's boyfriend with no damn proof. Everyone has that one family friend who the family calls 'Aunt/Uncle X', who aren't related... and that was my read of the character, a family friend. People were extremely eager to read non-hetero into every character in the movie.

It'a less of a case of "Here's-the-message-under-the-story-the-writer-is-sending" and more of "Here's-the-message-I-think-the-writer-intended". Some people like to crowbar in their own meanings into stories, regardless of if or what the author's intended meaning really is.

Elsa has something innate about her that she is told she has to keep hidden. She fears that if people find out, including her relatives, she will be hated, and indeed when she is 'outed' this happens. She then comes to terms with her power being a part of her, and she is accepted by her family and society, and can be openly herself.

I find the idea a bit awkward as a methaphor personally. Although I get the idea behind the resonance behind "hiding it away and then outing yourself" it feels a bit clunky when you take into account that Elsa had to hide her powers away because she almost killed Anna and her powers do indeed do a large amount of damage when they're unleashed. Not that I have any issue with gay people feeling a confidence boost from the film (that's obviously a good thing) or taking "Let it go" as an anthem, (it's a pretty stellar song), being gay isn't dangerous, wheras the ice powers were.

CelestDaer:

There was also that big falderall about the blonde guy in the sauna who everyone assumed was Oaken's boyfriend with no damn proof. Everyone has that one family friend who the family calls 'Aunt/Uncle X', who aren't related... and that was my read of the character, a family friend. People were extremely eager to read non-hetero into every character in the movie.

Yeah and of course, Oaken is supposed to be Swedish, presuming cultural crossover between the Swedish and Finnish,(quite likely given their shared history) being naked in the sauna with anyone is perfectly fine, as the sauna to the Finns isn't something sexual(you try getting it up in 80 degrees plus heat), it's just a place to go and relax, the Finns even hold business meetings in them. He /could've/ been Oakens husband/father to the kids, but it's equally possible he could've been a family member or even a friend.

elvor0:

I find the idea a bit awkward as a methaphor personally. Although I get the idea behind the resonance behind "hiding it away and then outing yourself" it feels a bit clunky when you take into account that Elsa had to hide her powers away because she almost killed Anna and her powers do indeed do a large amount of damage when they're unleashed. Not that I have any issue with gay people feeling a confidence boost from the film (that's obviously a good thing) or taking "Let it go" as an anthem, (it's a pretty stellar song), being gay isn't dangerous, wheras the ice powers were.

Yes, it has the same problem as Xmen as a metaphor for homosexuality/some other minority.
However, her powers aren't inherently bad, or even dangerous, her family just didn't know how to deal with it.
And more importantly, 'They're afraid of me and hate me because I'm special and better than they' is a very appealing fantasy, especially for anyone who is suffering from discrimination, and having self-esteem issues over it.

Not even discrimination, just anyone who feels alienated. (So the majority of teenagers for example)

I'm watching Bob's stuff for his insight and his impressions about a movie/series/whatever. It also helps with determining if a movie actually interests me. His past policy regarding spoilers has always seemed reasonable to me, so I don't really know why some people might feel like his videos may be revealing too much about the plot.

If someone is genuinely concerned about spoilers they really shouldn't watch any of his stuff and instead only check Rotten Tomatoes or imdb. How in hell do people expect to be both very well informed while not having anything spoiled about the plot at the same time? I still think Bob's reviews are exactly how they should be, at least it seems to me that it strikes a very good middle ground.

Falterfire:
I still don't get the 'Elsa is a lesbian' thing. I don't have a problem with it, but I still just don't see where the idea arose from in the first place.

It's mostly projection really.

"Let it Go" was a pretty general song about accepting who you are and embracing that which at the end of the day can be used to support anything. I recall there was one conservative critique who saw "Let it Go" as a woman embracing conservative values against the pressures of liberalism (or something ridiculous like that). There's also the less intelligent (and more uncomfortable) position that because Elsa lacked a male love interest she must be a lesbian. I'm pretty sure that side is a minority though.

Anyways, I'll praise Disney when they actually have a major LGBTQ character rather than simply having one who can merely be 'interpreted' that way.

Nil Kafashle:

Falterfire:
I still don't get the 'Elsa is a lesbian' thing. I don't have a problem with it, but I still just don't see where the idea arose from in the first place.

It's mostly projection really.

I recall there was one conservative critique who saw "Let it Go" as a woman embracing conservative values against the pressures of liberalism (or something ridiculous like that).

What? That's crazy. I mean yeah, personal interpretation and all, but wouldn't embracing who you are and shouting it from the rooftops be more of a liberalism motif? In that you have the liberty to do so? She becomes comfortable with who she is, and in the end is accepted for it. Afterall, a large number of conservative politicians are against...certain people being comfortable with who they are and shouting it from the rooftops.

elvor0:
What? That's crazy. I mean yeah, personal interpretation and all, but wouldn't embracing who you are and shouting it from the rooftops be more of a liberalism motif? In that you have the liberty to do so? She becomes comfortable with who she is, and in the end is accepted for it. Afterall, a large number of conservative politicians are against...certain people being comfortable with who they are and shouting it from the rooftops.

I'll try and find the article.

I'm pretty sure it was brought to my attention from a post by Escapist poster Bara_no_Hime.

EDIT: Meh can't seem to find the post but I did find this. I'm not sure if it was the article I was referencing (never looked at it myself) but it is a positive conservative interpretation.

Darth_Payn:

It'a less of a case of "Here's-the-message-under-the-story-the-writer-is-sending" and more of "Here's-the-message-I-think-the-writer-intended". Some people like to crowbar in their own meanings into stories, regardless of if or what the author's intended meaning really is.

So, I remember a Creative Writing class I took in college... everyone had to write and present a story over the course of the class. I caught so many presenters up by pointing out imagery they apparently didn't even realize they'd put into their work. It's really easy to add imagery that means something to someone else without doing it on purpose.

People are incredibly overzealous with spoilers lately. This very website had an article about game of thrones recently that ended with threats of BANNING if some spoiler was so much as hinted at. Chill out people, it's just a tv show. And if shock is the only thing a show has going for it, then it probably isn't all that great anyway (not that GOT is in that situation, mind you).

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here