Spoiler alert.
Long before the Internet, people ruined entertainment for each other. Having a place to commune about books, movies, TV shows and more just makes it easier.
However, in keeping with modern practice, here’s a warning to followers of “Game of Thrones” and “Mad Men:” There are spoilers in this entry.
With plot twists a few books or a quick Web search away, here’s a twist I didn’t see coming: The visceral, jump-off-the-couch reaction to the penultimate episode of the third season of “Game of Thrones.”
Sunday’s most recent installment ended in a nuptial-related bloodbath so shocking and brutal, fans of the books upon which the series is based call it “The Red Wedding.” Major characters die at what should be a celebratory event.
Best reaction from the Web: “Why doesn’t George R.R. Martin use Twitter? Because he killed off all 140 characters.”
The response on social media is surprising because the source material sat on shelves for 13 years, so it’s not as though no one knew this was coming. It’s stunning that it stayed under wraps for so much of the audience.
Then again, I managed to read all of the “Harry Potter” books for the first time last summer without knowing about some major twists ahead of time, so I suppose it's not impossible.
Sometimes, I wonder if we’re a little too sensitive about spoilers. “Game of Thrones” devotees can attest to the boundless fear about spoilerdom being such that even satirical publication The Onion’s legit entertainment wing, The A.V. Club, posts separate reviews for rookies as well as the studied.
Another aspect of all of this is spoilers don’t detract from enjoyment, according to a 2011 study by researchers at the University of California, San Diego.
The findings showed that readers overwhelmingly favored short stories that had the major plot twists slipped into the text early on over ones that did not.
That notion reinforces an April post of For Those About to Rock that contemplated withstanding repeated viewings, listenings or readings as proof of quality. It isn’t always true, however, as some works need only be consumed once for their full effect, such as the film “Precious,” but is generally accepted as fact.
For most pieces, it works. I’ve loaned Coen brothers-directed films to friends with the caution that they needed to watch them twice. The first viewing is to track the plot and the second time can focus on the smaller, funnier details.
This also goes a long way to explaining the phenomena of cult classics such as the Coens’ “The Big Lebowski” (left), a movie that died in theaters, but lives a lavish second life thanks to repeated viewings on VHS, DVD, Blu-ray and streaming platforms.
Nonetheless, while knowing the spoilers may remove the emotional heft of mystery, that’s precisely why we want it and are so persnickety about them.
I want that gut punch, so I can’t say as I blame “Game of Thrones” viewers for not having read the books.
Since I don’t always watch “Mad Men” when it airs, I choose to hibernate like a bear in Alaskan winter until I do, when it comes to message boards and social media.
I don’t even watch the teasers for upcoming episodes because I like to know nothing. (In the case of "Mad Men," I’m told I’m missing an art-house film of confusion.)
In the case of shows I really love such as “Mad Men,” I know I will watch them again, so I cherish the thrill of the initial viewing.
I couldn’t resist the temptation to read the “Game of Thrones” books before watching the series. It’s why I haven’t done either.
But craving that surprise is why I understand that, even with five voluminous tomes holding future story lines available, many “Game of Thrones” fans choose the experience of shock.
In my case, when I start reading, I’ll know The Red Wedding is coming, but apparently, that shouldn’t stunt my enjoyment, either.
The National's rendition of "The Rains of Castamere" from "Game of Thrones" ...
Comments