Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[JimmyJabloon]

Arcane- I really didn’t care about Mel. I didn’t actively dislike her, but I wouldn’t have been upset if she disappeared.

[andromeda331]

On 1/1/2022 at 5:27 AM, DrSpaceman73 said:

This brings up my unpopular opinion. :. I hate the show I love Lucy.  I can appreciate her talent and recognize her as a female tv pioneer but I don't like that show. 

 

So did I. I liked her better in other things. My favorite of hers is the original Yours, Mine and Ours. She was so funny, smart and had wonderful chemistry with Henry Fonda. 

On 1/1/2022 at 5:27 AM, DrSpaceman73 said:

This brings up my unpopular opinion. :. I hate the show I love Lucy.  I can appreciate her talent and recognize her as a female tv pioneer but I don't like that show. 

 

So did I. I liked her better in other things. My favorite of hers is the original Yours, Mine and Ours. She was so funny, smart and had wonderful chemistry with Henry Fonda. 

[proserpina65]

On 12/29/2021 at 11:48 PM, Annber03 said:

Yeah, I'm all for fandom sites having spoiler-free sections/discussions, and people tagging for spoilers in discussions and fics and such. And if one knows full well someone doesn't want to be spoiled about something and they purposefully spoil it for them anyway, that's not cool. 

But with the way people watch TV nowadays, be it old shows or new ones, and given the fact it's the internet in general, I think people also generally need to be prepared for the possibility they'll run into spoilers at some point if they go online, and figure out a method that works for them if they really, absolutely need to try and avoid spoilers for one reason or another. And indeed, if it's an older show/movie/book, then, yeah, again, if people want to tag for spoilers, great, but they shouldn't be expected to do so. 

My spoiler complaint is when general entertainment sites such as Entertainment Weekly put spoilers in the main page where you can't avoid them.  That's wrong and they shouldn't do it.  Half the time I was on a site to look at something else and would get spoiled about a show I hadn't had the chance to watch yet.

Now, once you click on show specific sites/pages/threads, all bets are off as far as I'm concerned.  And I avoid Facebook until I've seen the show/game, too.

[Egg McMuffin]

I can’t stand Debra Messing and she doesn’t look a thing like Lucille Ball. She spoke publicly about how she was available to play Lucy in the biopic. Get over yourself Debra.

I liked Betty White because she was kind of a jack of all trades when it came to TV. She could do comedy, she could do drama, she could do game shows, she could host game shows, etc. I also think that Sue Ann was a better role than Rose. Frankly, even Ellen, Eunice’s snooty sister on “Carol Burnett” and “Mama’s Family,” was a better role than Rose - that kind of small town snob was very distinct from Sue Ann and Rose, and she was great in it.

[DoctorAtomic]

39 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

My spoiler complaint is when general entertainment sites such as Entertainment Weekly put spoilers in the main page where you can't avoid them.

They're public enemy number one as far as I'm concerned. 

[Crs97]

4 hours ago, Kyle said:

 

I can’t stand Debra Messing and she doesn’t look a thing like Lucille Ball. She spoke publicly about how she was available to play Lucy in the biopic. Get over yourself Debra

 

Aaron Sorkin’s dialogue would have eaten her alive.  She would have left the project due to “creative differences” within the first week.

[Ms Blue Jay]

5 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

They're public enemy number one as far as I'm concerned. 

Best thing is to block all those sites on social media.  That's what I do.  (Media publications that post spoilers constantly.  The Hollywood Reporter, Buzzfeed, Vanity Fair, even Elle.com, and on and on and on.). 

I want to support television shows that obviously need it so sometimes I'll follow the show but mute them.  Because they live tweet every episode and not everyone watches live (it's not 1996 LOL).

[callie lee 29]

I guess I'm the rare one (possibly only one): I do not care about spoilers. Know ahead of time how it ends (movies, tv, books, etc) does not affect my enjoyment at all. 

I have no interest in the Lucy movie, I just don't get why everyone hates that Kidman is playing her? She's a lot less annoying than the actual Lucy.

[Enigma X]

54 minutes ago, callie lee 29 said:

I guess I'm the rare one (possibly only one): I do not care about spoilers. Know ahead of time how it ends (movies, tv, books, etc) does not affect my enjoyment at all. 

I actually like spoilers so much that I seek them out.

[Crs97]

Chances are that when someone mentions watching a movie, I will read the spoiler before I decide.  One day husband and/or children will notice that whenever I excuse myself for a moment but tell them to keep watching and “don’t mind me,” something bad is getting ready to happen.

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, callie lee 29 said:

I guess I'm the rare one (possibly only one): I do not care about spoilers. Know ahead of time how it ends (movies, tv, books, etc) does not affect my enjoyment at all. 

If a show is legitimately good--so good that spoilers wouldn't take away from my enjoyment, I usually don't want spoilers because I bet the execution will be so good.

It's only when a show relies on shock value that I want spoilers. 

That said, if I don't want to be spoiled, I watch the episode as soon as possible. 

[Ambrosefolly]

19 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

If a show is legitimately good--so good that spoilers wouldn't take away from my enjoyment, I usually don't want spoilers because I bet the execution will be so good.

It's only when a show relies on shock value that I want spoilers. 

That said, if I don't want to be spoiled, I watch the episode as soon as possible. 

While I don't mind spoilers myself, out of respect to others, I hate when MSM spoils shows. 

[Blergh]

8 hours ago, Kyle said:

I can’t stand Debra Messing and she doesn’t look a thing like Lucille Ball. She spoke publicly about how she was available to play Lucy in the biopic. Get over yourself Debra.

 

Is she trying for the Sean Young turney? I haven't forgotten how Miss Young dressed up as the Catwoman and harassed the Batman Returns (1992) folks in the costume (after Michelle Pfeiffer had already been cast in the part)- then brought the videotape of herself doing that to  show off  on the Joan Rivers Show for some shrink there to justify her  tantrum. Yeah, I wish that shrink had told her to get over herself as someone should tell Miss Messing! 

[Cloud9Shopper]

3 hours ago, callie lee 29 said:

I guess I'm the rare one (possibly only one): I do not care about spoilers. Know ahead of time how it ends (movies, tv, books, etc) does not affect my enjoyment at all. 

I have no interest in the Lucy movie, I just don't get why everyone hates that Kidman is playing her? She's a lot less annoying than the actual Lucy.

I can agree about spoilers. I have been accidentally spoiled for stuff I’m watching/have watched on Hulu and it doesn’t affect me because I can read about it on paper, but still see it and form my own reactions to the storyline. Reading it may give me one impression that totally changes when I watch the show or (best case) I won’t think about it once I close the window because I’m distracted easy and move on to the next thing. 

[Zella]

OK so my thing on spoilers is I don't want people foisting them on me against my will. I usually do try to avoid reading discussions about TV shows I'm behind on and I do have a reasonable expectation about older shows being more likely to be spoiled, especially if they're a big part of pop culture, but it really pisses me off when people will comment random spoilers in a place where you're not expecting to be spoiled, like dropping spoilers for one show in comments about another show or on actor obits. It's not so much that I think it ruins the experience as I just find it discourteous or like the other person is on a smug power trip. 

But I still sometimes seek them out because I can really get on edge wondering if something is going to happen to a character I like, so I'll cave and look up controlled spoilers. I won't quit watching if a character I like dies, but I just sometimes want some forewarning. Sometimes, I regret doing so (especially if they don't actually die because then I feel dumb or if I find out what happens to them is worse than I expected and then I have to wait for the inevitable) and other times I don't.

With both of the last 3 older acclaimed shows I watched years after everyone else (Justified, The Americans, and The Wire), I did end up getting antsy and checking on select characters, but I managed to avoid having the major finale points spoiled for me, which worked. 

Like Whitman, I contain multitudes. 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Zella

[RunningMarket]

For the most part, I don't mind spoilers (and will sometimes actively seek them out, especially for reality shows) but if I don't want spoilers, you know the show/movie means a lot to me. There are times I was glad I wasn't spoiled, for example (putting in tags just in case) 

Spoiler

the twist at the end of The Good Place season 1.

Back in the day, I used to work at a movie theatre and so I saw the ending of most movies before I got a chance to see the whole thing, and it never bothered me that I knew what happened. In some cases, it made me seek out seeing it faster because I was curious how it lead up to X happening.

Edited January 7, 2022 by RunningMarket
adding more

[Zella]

1 hour ago, RunningMarket said:

In some cases, it made me seek out seeing it faster because I was curious how it lead up to X happening.

Yeah sometimes the partial spoilers I seek out on my own really motivate me to watch more because I'm wondering how they got from the Point A of where I am to Point B of where it ends. 

[Mabinogia]

I think spoilers should be such that if you want them you can find them but they aren't put in headlines and if they are in an article it mentions something like "spoilers for this weeks episode". 

On some things I love spoilers, sometimes I need spoilers (to determine if it's worth sticking with something I'm lukewarm about) and sometimes I avoid being spoiled like the plague. The Good Place and Lost come to mind. While The Good Place hasn't suffered from my knowing what happens, and it is still 100% rewatchable, I don't know that I would have stuck with Lost if I'd known how it ended. I don't mind how it ended, it was fine, but if I'd read it before hand, well, it's not an ending that would work well on paper for me. 

[Bastet]

I generally don't care about being spoiled, and often seek them out, but when I watched The Good Place last year and got to the season one finale, I was damn happy I'd never read anything about the show other than it was great.  I went to the GP forum here and read through the season one threads, but never went back to read seasons two through four until I was done with the whole series, just in case.  That was the rare instance in which I really didn't want to be spoiled.

[Mabinogia]

24 minutes ago, Bastet said:

I generally don't care about being spoiled, and often seek them out, but when I watched The Good Place last year and got to the season one finale, I was damn happy I'd never read anything about the show other than it was great.

That moment gave me chills. I am not only glad I wasn't spoiled, but I was glad I didn't guess what was going to happen because that moment was truly magical for me. So much so that if I could have anything erased from my memory so I could relive it, it would be watching that show and reliving that moment. 

Unfortunately, or not, I rewatch the series, or experience it in other ways like clips, bloopers, blogs, etc, to forget what happened so I'll never have that moment back. :( But it shall live on in my memory as one of the few times a show really, truly was able to shock me in a way that wasn't annoying or eye rolling. It's one of the few times a shocking twist seemed organic. 

[ifionlyknew]

If I'm watching something that I'm not really enjoying I will seek out spoilers to see if it's worth continuing to  watch.   I do that with movies a lot.

[ABay]

When the internet was new and shiny, I used to hunt down spoilers because it's cool to be one of the elect. But after a while I realized spoilers sucked the the joy out of surprise for me and I ended up waiting for the spoiled moment to happen and not paying as much attention to what leads to it. So no spoilers for me.

If you wander into a show specific thread or places like EW and then complain about spoilers that's on you. But when you're reading a thread that has no connection to the show, like Commercials or Chit Chat, and someone posts about an episode without tagging it, it's on them and I hope I get to return the favor some day and ruin something for them. Why, yes, I am still bitter about the last season 1 episode of The Good Place being spoiled for me by some jackass (not on PrimeTimer).

[sistermagpie]

On 1/6/2022 at 8:20 PM, callie lee 29 said:

I have no interest in the Lucy movie, I just don't get why everyone hates that Kidman is playing her? She's a lot less annoying than the actual Lucy.

I didn't hate the idea, but it does seem like an odd choice since Lucille Ball's face was so comic in a specific way--the big eyes etc. that just looking at Nicole Kidman in costume was like...that's obviously not Lucy. Kidman can certainly be funny, but she would never have been a 50s sitcom lady of comedy of the same type. The same reason Lucille Ball never was a big movie star was the reason Nicole Kidman seems like a movie star. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

1 hour ago, ABay said:

If you wander into a show specific thread or places like EW and then complain about spoilers that's on you. 

Why should EW share spoilers?  It's Entertainment Weekly, not Spoilers Weekly.  I hate spoilers and I never want to see them.  I hate that I have to unfollow, mute, and Block every single social media account that's supposedly about entertainment because they share spoilers.  I don't understand the value of it.  If people love them, good for them!  But I don't think places like EW should share spoilers in headlines, EVER.  Nobody watches things live.  It's the unpopular opinion thread, so that's mine.

Edited January 8, 2022 by Ms Blue Jay

[DoctorAtomic]

12 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Why should EW share spoilers?  It's Entertainment Weekly, not Spoilers Weekly.

That's not about wandering in, either. You're looking at FB to see what you're friends are up to, you get a headline - 'zomg Ned got his head cut off!' Come on. You can say 'WOW comment in the thread, but spoilers!'

I'm not coming to this site until I watch a show first. That's on me if I do.

 

[Mabinogia]

13 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

But I don't think places like EW should share spoilers in headlines, EVER.  Nobody watches things live.

I think this is the trouble. Back in the day spoilers were hard to come by and easier to avoid because everyone was watching everything at the same time. If I missed my favorite show I'd tell my friends "don't tell me what happened. I haven't watched yet." Honestly I did this more with movies as there weren't a lot of shows back in the day that relied on not being spoiled. I mean, it wasn't going to ruin my day if I found out that Thelma dated a diplomat in the latest ep of Good Times. This was pre-Lost days. 

Now, with streaming and entire shows dropping in one day, and nearly everything ever popular that you may have missed available somewhere, it is harder to know what is and what isn't a spoiler for people. Who binged the entire show, who is watching it ep by ep, etc. 

But I do agree that just out of common curtesy one should never put a spoiler in their headline and should warn if there is something in the article that could spoil an ep. It's not even hard. "this article contains info about episode 3 of the show." is all it takes and I have seen articles like that, and I bookmark them to read after I've seen the ep.

Problem is, spoiler headlines often get more views and that is all anyone cares about anymore. Their views and likes and followers is all that matters. Ruining a show for a handful of folks pales against all the clicks/views they will get which will mean they can get more ads on their pages/shows. 

The WORST is when you're waiting in line for a movie and the people who just saw it are walking by talking about how devistating so and so's death was, or who stupid the twist where they were all ghosts and didn't know it was. GRRRRRRRRRRR That is just blatantly trying to destroy other people's happiness. 

[DoctorAtomic]

When people were lining up for Titanic, I yelled out 'I can't believe the ship sank!' on my way out the theatre. 

I didn't actually see the movie. We saw something else. It was just the line for Titanic was loooooong. 

 

[Bort]

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

The WORST is when you're waiting in line for a movie and the people who just saw it are walking by talking about how devistating so and so's death was, or who stupid the twist where they were all ghosts and didn't know it was. GRRRRRRRRRRR That is just blatantly trying to destroy other people's happiness. 

Spoiler!

[Zella]

9 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

When people were lining up for Titanic, I yelled out 'I can't believe the ship sank!' on my way out the theatre. 

I didn't actually see the movie. We saw something else. It was just the line for Titanic was loooooong. 

 

I had somebody have a meltdown on me during an online discussion of Outlander when I mentioned the high casualty rates at Culloden and general impact of the battle on the Highlanders. It wasn't me spoiling the series. It was me discussing history. As I've mentioned on here, I'm a big believer in not being an asshole to other people about spoilers just out of basic courtesy, but I refuse to consider history a spoiler. 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Zella

[Raja]

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

 

The WORST is when you're waiting in line for a movie and the people who just saw it are walking by talking about how devistating so and so's death was, or who stupid the twist where they were all ghosts and didn't know it was. GRRRRRRRRRRR That is just blatantly trying to destroy other people's happiness. 

☺️

That happened to me at Avengers Endgame after an internet blackout as I was walking from the parking lot and a group from an earlier showing was walking to their car.

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, Zella said:

I had somebody have a meltdown on me during an online discussion of Outlander when I mentioned the high casualty rates at Culloden and general impact of the battle on the Highlanders. It wasn't me spoiling the series. It was me discussing history. As I've mentioned on here, I'm a big believer in not being an asshole to other people about spoilers just out of basic courtesy, but I refuse to consider history a spoiler. 

I attempted the books but never watched the show, but I do remember Claire in the first few books being completely aware of what was going to happen to those around her in regards to Culloden.  Did the show cut this out?  

[Zella]

8 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I attempted the books but never watched the show, but I do remember Claire in the first few books being completely aware of what was going to happen to those around her in regards to Culloden.  Did the show cut this out?  

I honestly don't remember. I didn't like the book or the show but was fascinated by the ferocity of the online fandom and hung around the forums for that purpose only.  

[DearEvette]

35 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I attempted the books but never watched the show, but I do remember Claire in the first few books being completely aware of what was going to happen to those around her in regards to Culloden.  Did the show cut this out? 

The entire second book is Claire doing her pitiable best and actively working to stop the Jacobite uprising. Also, the books came out 30 years ago and were hugely popular back when they came out.  The online book fandom for these books, even when the internet was a baby, was insane. 

I read the first four books back when they were first pubbed, and had no desire to watch the tv series (my interest waned after the fourth book -- when it seemed like everybody and their daughter was time travelling and getting raped ) but it is difficult not to keep up with the news of what was going on with series and the second season absolutely followed the events of the second book.  I know mostly because I loved reading about and seeing the absolutely gorgeous Paris wardrobe the show had for Claire.

[festivus]

3 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

(my interest waned after the fourth book -- when it seemed like everybody and their daughter was time travelling and getting raped

Same. I have no desire to read anymore of the books or watch the show any further. I only like Lord John and am desperately hoping for a spinoff with his character. I do think the actress playing Claire is lovely and I would watch her in another show. 

[Annber03]

2 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

When people were lining up for Titanic, I yelled out 'I can't believe the ship sank!' on my way out the theatre. 

I didn't actually see the movie. We saw something else. It was just the line for Titanic was loooooong.

I went to see that movie with a friend when it came out, and when her dad was dropping us off at the theater, he was like, "Don't tell me how it ends!" :p. 

[Mabinogia]

4 hours ago, Zella said:

As I've mentioned on here, I'm a big believer in not being an asshole to other people about spoilers just out of basic courtesy, but I refuse to consider history a spoiler. 

It is sad that to some people history is a spoiler. :( Of course some people watch movies set during historic events and just assume that everything the the movie depicts it is the truth. 

I will say, even though I was spoiled for Titanic (but it being a real event that happened) and knew the ship was going to sink, I still bawled like a baby when it went down. Not for Rose and Jack, I couldn't care less about those two, but for that beautiful, beautiful ship. So see, spoilers don't necessarily ruin the emotional impact if it's well done. lol

[Zella]

15 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

Of course some people watch movies set during historic events and just assume that everything the the movie depicts it is the truth. 

Yeah I've gotten to where I can accept some diversion from historical fact in movies and still find the movie entertaining, but it bothers me when people then just assume the movie is true. 

Incidentally one of the things that really pissed me off about Outlander--besides how annoying I found Jamie and Claire--was how laughly bad the WWII history was. I didn't know enough about 18th century Scotland to argue with the depiction of that, but I can recite WWII trivia in my sleep. 

Gabaldon having Frank and Claire leisurely discharged and on holiday before the war was over because she apparently didn't know when the war actually ended was just a big no to me. The timeline on Claire becoming a nurse also made no sense. I will admit the one season of the show I watched skirted around those issues so automatically irritated me less, though I still didn't care for it. Lol

[SmithW6079]

On 1/6/2022 at 8:20 PM, callie lee 29 said:

I have no interest in the Lucy movie, I just don't get why everyone hates that Kidman is playing her? She's a lot less annoying than the actual Lucy.

 

On 1/7/2022 at 9:15 PM, sistermagpie said:

I didn't hate the idea, but it does seem like an odd choice since Lucille Ball's face was so comic in a specific way--the big eyes etc. that just looking at Nicole Kidman in costume was like...that's obviously not Lucy. Kidman can certainly be funny, but she would never have been a 50s sitcom lady of comedy of the same type. The same reason Lucille Ball never was a big movie star was the reason Nicole Kidman seems like a movie star. 

Isn't it that Kidman and Bardem are about 15 years older than Lucy and Desi as portrayed in the movie? Also, Kidman has had so much work done to her face that it doesn't move, and part of Lucy's schtick was her facial expressions.

Edited January 10, 2022 by SmithW6079

[sistermagpie]

14 minutes ago, SmithW6079 said:

 

Isn't it that Kidman and Bardem are about 15 years older than Lucy and Desi as portrayed in the movie? Also, Kidman has so much work done to her face that it doesn't move, and part of Lucy's schtick was her facial expressions.

That's definitely what's jarring for me. Lucille Ball had a rubber face on that show. That was part of her persona. So it's weird to cast someone who obviously just isn't that.

[Crs97]

6 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

That's definitely what's jarring for me. Lucille Ball had a rubber face on that show.

Since they show so little of an actual episode, she doesn’t need the rubber face.  In real life she didn’t make all those manic expressions.  Nicole did a good job.

[Haleth]

15 hours ago, festivus said:

I have no desire to read anymore of the books

I'm currently reading her latest, #9 in the series. 

Spoiler

It took DG ages to complete which is strange because it's a couple hundred pages before anything happens.  Just a whole lot of walking around and talking.  No one was raped yet. 

Oops, is that a spoiler?  I'll tag just in case.

Edited January 9, 2022 by Haleth

[sistermagpie]

10 hours ago, Crs97 said:

Since they show so little of an actual episode, she doesn’t need the rubber face.  In real life she didn’t make all those manic expressions.  Nicole did a good job.

I didn't think they were recreating episodes of the show, or that she'd be making the faces in real life. It was enough that that she couldn't. Especially when the make-up department seemed to be working hard otherwise. Probably would have been better for me if they'd just leaned into it. It's like casting Maggie Smith as off-screen Marilyn Monroe with wigs and prosthetics.

But to be clear, it's not like I was particularly against her casting. That was just my reaction to seeing pictures (which wasn't as bad as my reaction to that statue of her in her hometown!). Since this was Aaron Sorkin I assumed the movie would be more about Aaron Sorkin doing his thing than any recreation of other people.

[millennium]

I didn't need to see Lucy and Desi having sex.   I didn't need to hear Lucy and Desi using profane language.   I didn't need to see Lucy and Desi behaving like jerks to the people around them.

Most of all, I didn't need to see Lucy and Desi being boring.

If you haven't seen the Kidman movie already, do yourself a favor and skip it.

[annzeepark914]

2 hours ago, millennium said:

I didn't need to see Lucy and Desi having sex.   I didn't need to hear Lucy and Desi using profane language.   I didn't need to see Lucy and Desi behaving like jerks to the people around them.

Most of all, I didn't need to see Lucy and Desi being boring.

If you haven't seen the Kidman movie already, do yourself a favor and skip it.

Thanks for the warning. Kidman ruined Bewitched for me with her ridiculous whispery voice. So I wasn't sure I wanted to see this  movie.

[millennium]

4 minutes ago, annzeepark914 said:

Thanks for the warning. Kidman ruined Bewitched for me with her ridiculous whispery voice. So I wasn't sure I wanted to see this  movie.

IMO, there's something malicious about the practice of deconstructing legends.  The movie is ostensibly about Lucy attempting to survive being blacklisted as  a communist but there is nothing triumphant about it.  The movie tells you that story, but along the way wants to make you believe she wasn't a particularly nice or likeable person.

One of my favorite shows is Star Trek (made possible, incidentally, by Desilu Studios).   But I never want to see a movie about what happened behind the scenes.   I don't want to see Shatner depicted as an asshole or to see Leonard Nimoy smoking while dressed as Mr Spock or Grace Lee Whitney (Yeoman Janice Rand) drunk.   I don't need to meet my heroes, thank you very much.   I'm satisified with them as they are.

[RunningMarket]

On 1/8/2022 at 8:43 AM, Mabinogia said:

The WORST is when you're waiting in line for a movie and the people who just saw it are walking by talking about how devistating so and so's death was, or who stupid the twist where they were all ghosts and didn't know it was. GRRRRRRRRRRR That is just blatantly trying to destroy other people's happiness. 

This happened to friends as they were waiting to go into Force Awakens. People left talking about "that death". My husband and I were very careful not to speak of the latest Bond until we were safely back in our car.

[Crs97]

Those of us old enough to remember Return of the Jedi might remember when the Today show interviewed children about the movie the morning after the premiere, and one of them completely and innocently spoiled the movie.  The look on Bryant Gumbel’s face when he said, “Oops, I don’t think we were supposed to say that live” is hilarious now, but not so funny when we were going that night to see it.

[proserpina65]

On 1/7/2022 at 8:19 PM, ABay said:

f you wander into a show specific thread or places like EW and then complain about spoilers that's on you.

Show specific threads, sure.  But EW's main page SHOULD NOT have spoilers.  It's a general entertainment site covering many forms of entertainment and should save the spoilers for articles, not the contents page.

 

[BlackberryJam]

Clearly my opinion is unpopular because I want to know the ending before I go see a film. I despise surprise endings, and surprises period. Not knowing makes me uncomfortable and ruins the experience. I don't enjoy tension. 

[Lugal]

On 1/8/2022 at 3:55 PM, Mabinogia said:

It is sad that to some people history is a spoiler. :( Of course some people watch movies set during historic events and just assume that everything the the movie depicts it is the truth.

I remember when Troy came out and one of the reviews warned of spoilers and then added: Can you really have spoilers for a 3000 year old story?  I think once you get so far out from something, it's less on others not to spoil it for you.  For example can anyone really complain now about spoiling the end of Empire Strikes Back 40 years after the movie came out?

I don't mind spoilers, (it's only if I'm in the middle of something that I don't want to be spoiled) and often seek them out because if: 1) I don't have confidence in a creative team I want to make sure this is worth investing my time in and 2) it's good, knowing the ending can enhance my enjoyment of it.  Like The Good Place, which I was unspoiled for, but knowing the twist at the first season, on every rewatch I love picking out new things and different spins on events.