Idle Thumbs 181: Rumors & Hearsay

[Gormongous]

Okay but Idle Thumbs isn't a podcast specifically about Alien:Isolation, it's a general gaming podcast. I usually don't even look at the list of games discussed, and for people who listen to it through a feed the list probably won't even be visible. It sounds a lot like complaining about people being considerate, which seems odd to me.

 

I don't know, being really leery of spoilers sounds a lot like complaining about knowing a few things in advance from one of several thousand works one might consume over a decade or so, which seems odd to me. I don't see why the expectation not to talk about anything substantive in something being discussed is reasonable but the expectation to avoid discussion of things one doesn't want spoiled is not. This is just my opinion, and I know it's unfair by a large amount, but bending over backwards to accommodate one specific way of enjoying media, among dozens of others and often to their detriment, is something I have difficulty understanding in its current ubiquity.

[Problem Machine]

I think there's a case to be made that people overidealize the joy of newness and discovery to the exception of craft and deeper significance, but it still seems super weird to me to say that it's a problem that people respect their perspective enough to accommodate them.

[Gormongous]

I think there's a case to be made that people overidealize the joy of newness and discovery to the exception of craft and deeper significance, but it still seems super weird to me to say that it's a problem that people respect their perspective enough to accommodate them.

 

I respect their perspective, I just don't think it needs to be universally accommodated. There's room for spoiler-heavy shows and spoiler-free shows, but I don't really understand why the latter are overwhelmingly the default in all forms of discourse, especially when so inconsistently applied. I mean, the Thumbs spoiled the hell out of Desert Golfing, a game that relies on newness and discovery for most of its appeal, but no one seem to care and instead I got to hear Sean's perspective on appreciating it purely as an exercise in craft. I'd like more of that.

[Problem Machine]

It's tricky in a situation like IT where there's no telling what they're going to talk about on any given week's cast. Like, i've been listening to Video Games Hotdog, and each week they have the assignment game and you know there's going to be spoilers for that game and they'll probably avoid spoiling anything else. Myself, I'm moderately spoiler averse in that I like to get the unique experience of discovery, but I know I'll enjoy it anyway if it's good. From my perspective, it sucks to be blindsided with spoilers: Almost more because of the betrayal of trust than because of the material damage. I think if a podcast isn't going to accommodate for spoilers, it should at least accommodate far enough to say that discussions on the podcast tend to be spoiler-heavy.

[Bjorn]

I'm all for avoiding spoilers in forums, we have tags specifically for that and it's super easy to just be browsing a thread and see something you didn't want to (thought I admit a whole host of nested spoiler windows is fugly as hell).  I like to be able to be active in a forum as I'm playing a game, or before if it's something I know I'm going to play. 

 

But in written works or podcasts though, spoil away.  Just say, "And now we're going to talk/write in-depth about X, checkout for awhile if you don't want to know that."  Done!  The power to be unspoiled is put in the hands of those who care to make that decision, and the onus is also put on the unspoiled to come back and revisit the podcast or essay at a future time when they are prepared to. 

 

Weirdly enough, I've had to come to terms with the fact that the things I most don't want spoiled (often little, surprising and wonderful details) are the things that everyone seems fine spoilering.  So whatever, I got used to it. Those always seem to be the charming things that reviewers use to try and paint a scene when describing a game.  Because it's often the minor points or details that bring me the most joy in a narrative game.  Arguably my favorite moment of any game ever came in Deadly Premonition, and it's the kind of moment that couldn't exist without being completely unaware of it. 

 

When the game time hits midnight, semi-truck sized devil dogs begin raining from the sky like diabolical giant hailstones. The first time this happened, one landed directly in front of my car as I was just cruising around fucking off. I flipped the car around and hauled ass back to the hotel, with the dog on my tail the whole time. I was screaming and freaking out, my wife was laughing her ass off. I crashed the car into the side of the motel and sprinted inside, barely escaping unscathed.

 

^that moment only works if you don't know what's coming.  It's not a story event.  It just happens under the right circumstances.  And it's awesome. 

[Gormongous]

It's tricky in a situation like IT where there's no telling what they're going to talk about on any given week's cast. Like, i've been listening to Video Games Hotdog, and each week they have the assignment game and you know there's going to be spoilers for that game and they'll probably avoid spoiling anything else. Myself, I'm moderately spoiler averse in that I like to get the unique experience of discovery, but I know I'll enjoy it anyway if it's good. From my perspective, it sucks to be blindsided with spoilers: Almost more because of the betrayal of trust than because of the material damage. I think if a podcast isn't going to accommodate for spoilers, it should at least accommodate far enough to say that discussions on the podcast tend to be spoiler-heavy.

 

Yeah, that's fair. I suppose I get frustrated because it's always taken as a given that spoiler-free is the best way to experience anything, with which I tend to disagree. You only get to watch something for the first time once, and many of my best media experiences have involved movies and games that have been heavily spoiled so that I know exactly what to look for in terms of artistic choices. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is a particular standout about which I think I actually wrote the podcast.

 

Sometimes I would like to have the Thumbs drill way down on the central themes of a game, but they usually hold off either because other people on the podcast haven't played the game and plan to do so (totally fair) or because they think it's something that should be experienced firsthand (not so fair). Two of my favorite third-generation Idle Thumbs episodes are the Bioshock Infinite and The Last of Us spoiler casts, even though I didn't and never intend to play either, because the use of spoilers allowed them really to explore those games (and games in general) in ways I never could have done. Like I said, I'd like it to happen more, but I understand that it's hard for everyone to have either played the game or given up on playing it. I don't really have solutions, just desires.

[Ben X]

As someone who is particularly spoiler-averse, I'll weigh in even though most stuff has been said already.

 

It's not spoilers that are the problem, it's the lack of warnings or tags. It takes very little effort to do this and it's common courtesy, yet so many sites (io9 is particularly bad) just throw big plot elements out there on their front page. If they're tagged/warned, it's then the spoiler-averse viewer's responsibility to avoid/resist them.

 

Having a certain plot twist or element spoiled won't ruin the piece as a whole if it's good, but it does ruin that particular element which is a part of the piece that the author intended the audience to experience. From Dusk Til Dawn is still an awesome movie even if you know the deal, but watching it unaware and having that huge WTF moment is something worth preserving imo. Same with, say, Psycho or Planet Of The Apes. Even aside from twists, I watched Robocop and Terminator at a young enough age to know pretty much nothing about them, and experiencing the gradual reveal of the nature of those eponymous characters was really cool. I would have read Cloud Atlas even if it was a big spoiler, and it's way beyond the spoiler warning statute of limitations (I'd say off the top of my head - movies, books and games 2 years before you can stop with spoiler warnings; a tv series at least until the next season has started) so I wouldn't have resented it even (the reason I asked is because once I've had something spoiled I do like to know how big an element of the piece it is so at least I don't have misaligned expectations).

 

I have to disagree with Gormongous about first time viewing, at least with movies. You can look for artistic choices on any subsequent watch (or even whilst considering the piece straight after your first viewing!), but the ftv is the only time you're able to watch with no preconceptions or foreknowledge. Most films/shows are written on the assumption that the viewer knows nothing going in, so it seems to me that's the logical way to watch them.

[SuperBiasedMan]

It definitely makes a difference even for not really plot based things. When I watched the Shining, it was after years of watching the Simpsons and other cultural references to the Shining, to the point that I actually knew a lot of the set pieces that were in the film and it ruined my viewing of it. It felt like I was rewatching a film I'd seen before. I knew a lot of it already and though it was clearly a good movie, a lot of the delight and enjoyment was sapped from it as a result.

 

I'm generally spoiler averse because I'd rather just get a simple recommendation on something and discover everything for myself, then hear how others responded. If I hear other people telling me the stuff, I'm not discovering it properly and I often get to hear their response before I get to have my own.

[RubixsQube]

First, I think that all of this discussion has been really great! I think that it makes sense to me to think about some art as being created as a working, intricate whole, and "spoiling" certainly can undercut the artistic intention, even on a small part. In my experience, I find that I appreciate and seek pieces of media and art that requires a lot of thought and craft, and I feel that you can overcome spoilers. Case in point:

 

It definitely makes a difference even for not really plot based things. When I watched the Shining, it was after years of watching the Simpsons and other cultural references to the Shining, to the point that I actually knew a lot of the set pieces that were in the film and it ruined my viewing of it. It felt like I was rewatching a film I'd seen before. I knew a lot of it already and though it was clearly a good movie, a lot of the delight and enjoyment was sapped from it as a result.

 

I watched The Shining only recently, because I am a dope and avoid cinematic horror experiences. I also have had references to the film thrown at me from every corner of culture, and I had a different experience from you SuperBiased. There was no way a lifetime of sly winks and Simpsons episodes could have made a dent in what is truly a cinematic masterpiece. I think that spoilers too often reveal plot elements, or light style pastiche. Kubrick's film rises above that, it is so, so much more than a straightforward series of events, and when I saw it all put together, it was magical. It's all my own experience, I suppose. I'm just a person who believes (like I think many of you who responded) that when you build something well, you can have people describe every part of it, and it's still well, well worth seeing and experiencing on your own. I do appreciate that people are conscientious of indicating when they are "spoiling" elements of a piece of art, but I am also someone who thinks that today's pop culture environment values plot too highly. That's maybe a conversation for another time.  

[Merus]

There really is a joy in going into a story without any preconceptions of what it's about. I went to see Argo on a recommendation, with absolutely no idea what it was about. Didn't see a trailer, didn't even see the poster. I bought a ticket to Argo, sat down, and tried to keep up. It was delightful; I think I enjoyed it much more than I would have had I know what to expect.

[Twig]

I'm just a person who believes (like I think many of you who responded) that when you build something well, you can have people describe every part of it, and it's still well, well worth seeing and experiencing on your own.

Yep! THIS IS TRUE!

Also, I can appreciate not getting spoiled and I will actively avoid anything that I know would spoil it, but I think if a spoiler ruins an experience for me, it's not really a great experience in the first place. I've never felt like Not Knowing a Thing would have made something I disliked suddenly better. Conversely, I've never felt like Knowing a Thing has actively made something worse. It's just a different kind of enjoyment. For me, anyway.

[Jake]

It definitely makes a difference even for not really plot based things. When I watched the Shining, it was after years of watching the Simpsons and other cultural references to the Shining, to the point that I actually knew a lot of the set pieces that were in the film and it ruined my viewing of it. It felt like I was rewatching a film I'd seen before. I knew a lot of it already and though it was clearly a good movie, a lot of the delight and enjoyment was sapped from it as a result.

I'm generally spoiler averse because I'd rather just get a simple recommendation on something and discover everything for myself, then hear how others responded. If I hear other people telling me the stuff, I'm not discovering it properly and I often get to hear their response before I get to have my own.

This might sound strange but have you watched the shining a SECOND time? You might enjoy it more now that you've seen it once and your brain has had a chance to wash it off from all of those references. It won't be the same as watching it unblemished for the first time, but I think it will be the first time you can watch that movie on its own terms, knowing what it is instead of what you think it's going to be after years of cultural inundation.

I'm not saying watch it twice back to back, but if it's been a while since that first viewing, it might be a worthwhile experiment. I suspect you'd enjoy it more than the first viewing.

[Gormongous]

I have to disagree with Gormongous about first time viewing, at least with movies. You can look for artistic choices on any subsequent watch (or even whilst considering the piece straight after your first viewing!), but the ftv is the only time you're able to watch with no preconceptions or foreknowledge. Most films/shows are written on the assumption that the viewer knows nothing going in, so it seems to me that's the logical way to watch them.

 

Movies are mostly made with the intention that they be watched with no foreknowledge, but that doesn't mean that's the best way they're to be experienced. Death of the author and all that. My favorite example from recent years is Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. I listened to the Quarter to Three movie podcast about it, which covered most of the movie's major themes and motifs, before going to see it with two friends. Knowing in advance what was important and what was not, I was able to focus on the performances and direction that make the movie transcendent, while both my friends struggled to follow the admittedly complex plot and couldn't really spare attention for anything else. Spoilers were the difference between them hating the movie and me loving it, so I don't give as much credence to that kind of intent as I used to do. Besides, chances are you're watching a movie on a TV or a monitor in the comfort of somebody's home, able to pause and rewind at will. That's all very far removed from the intended viewing experience of the filmmaker, but I doubt it bothers anyone that much.

 

Like Bjorn said, I don't really care about things getting spoiled. A quick disclaimer like "We're going to do spoilers for five or so minutes, skip ahead" is all that's necessary in my mind, but maybe that's because I have never had a movie or game that was noticeably degraded by any sort of foreknowledge. Like Twig said, it's not better or worse, just different.

[Badfinger]

For all the things I consume media ABOUT (games, books when IT had their book podcast), I don't care one bit about spoilers. The only game I can think of where I cared a whit about being spoiled was The Walking Dead, and while I worked my best to avoid it I am still pretty sure I know like 75% of the important story beats. I'm happy to hear as much as someone wants to talk about things.

 

I guess I care slightly about being spoiled on movies, and to a tiny degree television (that I'll never watch)? But I don't consume additional media ABOUT that media, so I'm essentially keeping myself out of that spoiler loop anyway. Most of the movies/tv that are worth spoiling are either out there in parody or popular media already anyway ie. The Shining, Citizen Kane. Maybe I don't care about those spoilers either. It definitely seems true that the concept and strength of "spoilers" differs across media types, and possibly even genres

[Gormongous]

I guess I care slightly about being spoiled on movies, and to a tiny degree television (that I'll never watch)? But I don't consume additional media ABOUT that media, so I'm essentially keeping myself out of that spoiler loop anyway. Most of the movies/tv that are worth spoiling are either out there in parody or popular media already anyway ie. The Shining, Citizen Kane. Maybe I don't care about those spoilers either. It definitely seems true that the concept and strength of "spoilers" differs across media types, and possibly even genres

 

The funny thing about Citizen Kane is that the "spoiler" is expressly meant to show how ridiculous it is to think that any single detail about a man's life is essential to knowing who he was (and also how unknowable a man's life is). Actually knowing the identity of Rosebud as a viewer changes nothing about the movie, because that's the point.

[SuperBiasedMan]

I watched The Shining only recently, because I am a dope and avoid cinematic horror experiences. I also have had references to the film thrown at me from every corner of culture, and I had a different experience from you SuperBiased. There was no way a lifetime of sly winks and Simpsons episodes could have made a dent in what is truly a cinematic masterpiece. I think that spoilers too often reveal plot elements, or light style pastiche. Kubrick's film rises above that, it is so, so much more than a straightforward series of events, and when I saw it all put together, it was magical. It's all my own experience, I suppose. I'm just a person who believes (like I think many of you who responded) that when you build something well, you can have people describe every part of it, and it's still well, well worth seeing and experiencing on your own. I do appreciate that people are conscientious of indicating when they are "spoiling" elements of a piece of art, but I am also someone who thinks that today's pop culture environment values plot too highly. That's maybe a conversation for another time.  

 

I am pretty plot focused generally, I am pretty poor at reading people's emotions both in real life and film at all. So often the layer of acting and performance fly right over my head and the real emotion of a film comes from the visual choices, the editing and the plot. That's a large part of why plot is a big part of movies for me.

 

With the Shining in particular the tension of the plot was gone because the events were more familiar than they ought to be, since I'd seen them all before my brain just registered it as "Oh yeah, this bit where he plows the axe through a door." I still got to see the film as well crafted and I loved the cinematography in particular, but the emotions were much more muted and that felt like a second viewing thing to me, which was a shame.

 

This might sound strange but have you watched the shining a SECOND time? You might enjoy it more now that you've seen it once and your brain has had a chance to wash it off from all of those references. It won't be the same as watching it unblemished for the first time, but I think it will be the first time you can watch that movie on its own terms, knowing what it is instead of what you think it's going to be after years of cultural inundation.

I'm not saying watch it twice back to back, but if it's been a while since that first viewing, it might be a worthwhile experiment. I suspect you'd enjoy it more than the first viewing.

 

That is an interesting proposal. It's actually been a good half a year or so since I saw it, so it would be worth trying out to see what difference it makes.

[SecretAsianMan]

Oh hey, a discussion about spoilers.  I wish I could have jumped in on this early instead of being stuck at work.

 

For me, spoilers are actually quite helpful.  I'm the kind of person who watches a movie or plays a game and can't help but try to figure everything out before it happens.  This means that I pay a lot of attention to detail but because I'm trying to work things out I tend to overlook the nuance of non-plot things like the performance or the art direction.  Spoilers help me a lot in this regard because if I already know whats going to happen, I won't spend time trying to analyze it in advance and can pay attention to other things instead.  The exception to this is when the majority of the appeal is the plot.  The Sixth Sense is the biggest example of this for me.  I wasn't directly told what the plot of the movie was, I was just informed that it had a twist.  But that information alone caused me to look for the twist and I figured it out part of the way into the movie.  It was an entirely mechanical exercise and ruined any kind of discovery.  The as a result film was extremely boring to me so I never got blown away like others did.

[Badfinger]

The funny thing about Citizen Kane is that the "spoiler" is expressly meant to show how ridiculous it is to think that any single detail about a man's life is essential to knowing who he was (and also how unknowable a man's life is). Actually knowing the identity of Rosebud as a viewer changes nothing about the movie, because that's the point.

Ok fine.

 

The point was just that so many parts and pieces of classic films are threaded into other films and media either consciously or through importance of influence.

[syntheticgerbil]

This was one of the funniest episodes of the show I've heard. Not Everyone sounded like they were in such high spirits.

 

Also I have no fucking clue why, but I played Chex Quest 1 and 2, not because I didn't have access to Doom or Wolfenstein but I guess because they were free(?). I remember absolutely despising the design of every fucking character and how ugly it was but I finished them.

 

Here's what's amazing about Chex Quest 2. It did not come with the cereal but instead you had to download it from the official website. The intros and endings were done as flash cartoons. I remember them being some of the earliest examples of Flash I had seen (in cartoon form at least) and they were done in a different style completely different from the bad primitive 3D intros and endings for the first game.

 

And I guess to save file size these flash cartoons were not included with the, either rendered as an AVI, mpeg, or just image stills or whatever. So you were supposed to go the website, watch the intro, finish the game, and then go back to the website and watch the ending.

 

Of course fuck that I just watched them all in one go. If I recall, looking a few years ago much to the outcry of Chex Quest fans, these flash cartoons have never been recovered as I guess archive.org doesn't have the working swfs, so you can never play the game as intended in full ever again. I wonder if someone has located them by now...

 

EDIT: Yes it appears these flash cartoons are still lost forever.

 

10/27/03: Important announcement! I have recieved word that there was a Chex Quest 2 movie released over the internet from chexquest.com when the game came out. I am requesting that anyone who has it send it in immediatly! This important historical document must be preserved and spread!

To think, I'm one of the rare few to see such an important historical document.

 

It had an opening CG movie that looked okay at the time, but is incredibly dated now.

Nooooo way, it was NEVER good. 90s prerendered cutscenes generally were of low quality, but Chex Quest was bottom of the barrel.

 

I don't know, maybe I was spoiled by seeing the intro to Bug! before, the most popular Sega Saturn game released on CD-Rom for Windows 95, but there has never been a time where the Chex Quest intro didn't make me embarrassed for those who made it.

[Ben X]

My favorite example from recent years is Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy ... spoilers were the difference between them hating the movie and me loving it, so I don't give as much credence to that kind of intent as I used to do. Besides, chances are you're watching a movie on a TV or a monitor in the comfort of somebody's home, able to pause and rewind at will. That's all very far removed from the intended viewing experience of the filmmaker, but I doubt it bothers anyone that much.

 

Quick disclaimer: i absolutely agree that these are just different ways of viewing, not better or worse. If you like watching with spoilers, that's great. I just resent the attitude some have (no one here as far as I'm aware!) that because they don't care about spoilers, no one should. This occasionally spills over into people maliciously spoiling films, which is the pits #notallspoilerlovers

 

That disclaimed, I'd say that if a contemporary film requires as much prep as, say, a Shakespeare play performance.then that's a failing on that film's part! And I personally don't pause or rewind if I miss something - if a film is, intentionally or not, throwing too much information at me to take in on a first viewing, I want that to be part of my experience!

 

That's an interesting reading of Citizen Kane. Wouldn't you say that

the Rosebud reveal has at least some meaning, though? It's not a random object, it represents his carefree life before he got taken away and given shitloads of unearned money. Doesn't the fact that this is his dying thought provide extra characterisation, a new prism through which to view his actions throughout the movie?

[CEJ]

Danielle describing The Evil Within as "batshit" made me want to catalogue the meanings we assign to different types of shit in English.

 

Batshit: (adv.) ridiculously "Batshit insane" (adj.) unbelievable, in a ridiculous or entertaining way "This game is batshit."

Dogshit: (n.) something of very poor quality "This game is dogshit."

Bullshit: (n.) lies, often completely disassociated from the truth. "This essay was bullshit" (n.) something that's unfair "This level is bullshit" (adj.) unfair "I hate this bullshit level"

Horseshit: (n.) lies, often completely disassociated from the truth. "This essay was horseshit" (n.) something that's unfair "This level is horseshit" (n.) something of very poor quality "This game is horseshit."

 

Anybody got any others?

 

Shitfaced: To be 'shitfaced' is to be totally drunk.

[Ben X]

Shitbird - a completely useless arsehole (apparently originally a US military term)

Shit-eating grin - broad, smug grin

 

And in The Blues Brothers, Elwood uses "to bullshit" as a term for telling white lies. "I didn't lie, I just... bullshitted you."

[undermind9]

dont forget "Shithead" - a moron or asshole (which is shit adjacent really)

[Merus]

Wouldn't you say that

the Rosebud reveal has at least some meaning, though? It's not a random object, it represents his carefree life before he got taken away and given shitloads of unearned money. Doesn't the fact that this is his dying thought provide extra characterisation, a new prism through which to view his actions throughout the movie?

 

I watched that scene recently, and the reporter who's been tracking down Rosebud through the entire movie spells it out:

it didn't help. There's no one prism through which you can view a man that'll make his life make sense. Rosebud is consigned to the flames, a little extra for the viewers, but the characters don't need it. Rosebud doesn't change what he did. Rosebud doesn't change who he was. All they know is that on his deathbed, in his gigantic mansion where his every whim is catered to, it still wasn't enough, and there's something to the fact that a man like Kane couldn't get everything he wanted after all.

[Danielle]

dont forget "Shithead" - a moron or asshole (which is shit adjacent really)

 

On the shit discussion! There's an entire section of the novel I Am Charlotte Simmons that describes the entire "shit patois" as Charlotte, the protagonist, encounters new uses of "shit" as a super naive (but gifted) college freshman.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=1EPdr5xFKfsC&pg=PA471&lpg=PA471&dq=shit+patois&source=bl&ots=4rtW1SrCSs&sig=AulO5BnR_enT0SyS9fHuPwmufFo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YeNNVIX7KoquogTo5YLICA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=shit%20patois&f=false

 

It's possibly the best part of a book that is rather depressing in its dim (though not necessarily undeserved) view of college life in the 2000s.