(no subject)
Sep. 21st, 2012 17:46![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sekritomgI've noticed that people seem to be especially sensitive to "spoilers" lately, not just in the sense that knowing the conclusion of a story or key plot details will ruin it for them, but even the topic of a TV episode, or a snippet of dialogue, or a 10-second clip from a much longer work, or even an image of how a character/set is styled. In the past day I've seen this come up specifically in regard to the new Hobbit trailer, and the new Comedy Central South Park Halloween episode commercial. Now, I am not that sensitive to spoilers, like, you can basically tell me the ending to something and it won't ruin it for me -- but I totally get preferring not to know the ending, or some crucial aspect of the ending. Like, with Harry Potter, there were leaked copies of the books, particularly the final book, before the actual release, and I was very invested in knowing what happened or like, what the point of the whole clusterfuck had been. And that was such a spectacularly shitty book that I can totally say that, yeah, going into it with a knowledge of what is going to happen (i.e. nothing) would have diminished the experience.
But I think the definition of "spoiler" has possibly gotten out of hand. The SP commercial is a 10-second snippet of what I presume is a Halloween episode. It's likely that they made part of it, gave Comedy Central 10 seconds of footage for a commercial, and won't air the thing until October 31, or finish it that week. I'm really curious as to how that diminishes someone's enjoyment of the actual episode. Previews are supposed to make you more excited, not less. What's going on in that clip? Well, it's Halloween so the boys are trick-or-treating, which they always try to do on Halloween. They're dressed up as the Avengers, which was a huge popular thing recently and I bet lots of kids will be Avengers for Halloween this year. A guy makes a Honey Boo Boo joke, which comedians have been making jokes about for the past month already. South Park tends to be pretty topical or maybe five-months-late topical, so I don't really see this as shocking. Moreover, the clip doesn't reveal anything of the plot of the episode or the decision-making process behind any aspect of what's presented in those 10 seconds. South Park is rarely a mystery. Arguably the biggest shocker ending in SP history, Cartman's Chili Con Carnival, was made 10 years ago and reflects a kind of outmoded model for SP episodes. Now if there's a twist ending, it's often because the writers are out of ideas and think slapping something from left field on there would be funny.
Above all else, SP is just not a plot-driven show where consequences matter. Even when things shift or evolve ever so slightly, they pretty much maintain the status quo. While the boys are now 10, they're not arguably different than they were at age 8. Likewise, the idea of aging up to grade 4 would mean anything was openly mocked. Stan's cynicism disappeared into the ether, his parents got back together, Cartman doesn't seem to be practicing Judaism, Clyde doesn't appear to be grieving for his late mother -- this is a show where stuff changes glacially, and those changes are rarely dwelled on. The idea that Kenny could be killed repeatedly, in every episode -- or not, fuck it, who cares -- remains one of the totems of the show's philosophy. When Kenny died "permanently" he was resurrected within a year. When Garrison changed his gender, they juiced all the laughs they could out of it over two years, and then changed him back. And even when he was a woman, he wasn't substantially different. The farthest-reaching change I can think of on South Park is the death of Chef, a character who no longer appears because his voice actor voluntarily left the show and died. And even that development wasn't really the end of a long plot development or some kind of twist; it was a visual manifestation of the absurdity of a real-life situation that was covered extensively by the press.
I'm not saying not wanting to be spoiled is bad, mind. I think everyone should do whatever they want to avoid whatever content is necessary to enjoy media. But I am asking questions: Can South Park really be spoiled? If so, how?
And is this a subject with further-reaching implications for fandom? For ... society???
Okay, that's enough meta for today. As you were.
But I think the definition of "spoiler" has possibly gotten out of hand. The SP commercial is a 10-second snippet of what I presume is a Halloween episode. It's likely that they made part of it, gave Comedy Central 10 seconds of footage for a commercial, and won't air the thing until October 31, or finish it that week. I'm really curious as to how that diminishes someone's enjoyment of the actual episode. Previews are supposed to make you more excited, not less. What's going on in that clip? Well, it's Halloween so the boys are trick-or-treating, which they always try to do on Halloween. They're dressed up as the Avengers, which was a huge popular thing recently and I bet lots of kids will be Avengers for Halloween this year. A guy makes a Honey Boo Boo joke, which comedians have been making jokes about for the past month already. South Park tends to be pretty topical or maybe five-months-late topical, so I don't really see this as shocking. Moreover, the clip doesn't reveal anything of the plot of the episode or the decision-making process behind any aspect of what's presented in those 10 seconds. South Park is rarely a mystery. Arguably the biggest shocker ending in SP history, Cartman's Chili Con Carnival, was made 10 years ago and reflects a kind of outmoded model for SP episodes. Now if there's a twist ending, it's often because the writers are out of ideas and think slapping something from left field on there would be funny.
Above all else, SP is just not a plot-driven show where consequences matter. Even when things shift or evolve ever so slightly, they pretty much maintain the status quo. While the boys are now 10, they're not arguably different than they were at age 8. Likewise, the idea of aging up to grade 4 would mean anything was openly mocked. Stan's cynicism disappeared into the ether, his parents got back together, Cartman doesn't seem to be practicing Judaism, Clyde doesn't appear to be grieving for his late mother -- this is a show where stuff changes glacially, and those changes are rarely dwelled on. The idea that Kenny could be killed repeatedly, in every episode -- or not, fuck it, who cares -- remains one of the totems of the show's philosophy. When Kenny died "permanently" he was resurrected within a year. When Garrison changed his gender, they juiced all the laughs they could out of it over two years, and then changed him back. And even when he was a woman, he wasn't substantially different. The farthest-reaching change I can think of on South Park is the death of Chef, a character who no longer appears because his voice actor voluntarily left the show and died. And even that development wasn't really the end of a long plot development or some kind of twist; it was a visual manifestation of the absurdity of a real-life situation that was covered extensively by the press.
I'm not saying not wanting to be spoiled is bad, mind. I think everyone should do whatever they want to avoid whatever content is necessary to enjoy media. But I am asking questions: Can South Park really be spoiled? If so, how?
And is this a subject with further-reaching implications for fandom? For ... society???
Okay, that's enough meta for today. As you were.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-09-21 22:14 (UTC)i disagree with some of what you're saying, though. i think SP can be spoiled. parts of it, at least. the fact that it's a deliberately absurd show full of topical commentary doesn't negate the fact that it can be surprising, and that that surprise is enjoyable. now personally, i actually prefer knowing what each episode is like before watching it, because i'm insane and if something is super duper disgusting or super duper Kyman i do not want my response to be intensified by the element of surprise. but if, say, Mysterion's identity had been spoiled for me -- which it was, come to think of it -- I would have been sad! which i saw, but mostly because he wasn't Clyde.
i probably have more I could say but my battery's super low and i'm hungry so I think I'll grab food and go to the library.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-21 22:38 (UTC)but the thing was, even if i had seen the video, I wouldn't have known anything about why clyde was a giant monster. it was left unexplained, because it was a fucking promo, intended to incite curiosity. so -- whguhguhgh
no subject
Date: 2012-09-21 22:43 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-21 22:45 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-21 22:48 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-21 22:52 (UTC)but yeah no really I was just sitting there like WHAT IS GOING ON, WHAT DID THEY RELEASE, WHAT'S CLYDE DOING IS THIS FROM THE SHOW IS CLYDE EVIL NOW?
no subject
Date: 2012-09-21 22:53 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-21 22:41 (UTC)Well, it's a spoiler if you believe that having any information about the show before sitting down to watch it will ruin or diminish your enjoyment of that episode. To a certain extent in this post I'm not espousing my own viewpoint, just kind of wondering about these perspectives. I agree that certain elements of SP are definitely best left to surprise if possible, but I also think that where the line of preferred surprise is drawn is extremely variable and personal, so you just have to negotiate some medium between knowing nothing and knowing everything. My person feeling on media has always been that anything that's been officially released by the parent company/creator/license holder isn't a spoiler; that includes marketing materials like previews, posters, images on sippy cups at Burger King, the one-line synopsis in TV Guide (which isn't a thing anymore, but you get what I mean). And I think to a certain extent this level of basic information manages your expectations, which is helpful, and what you were alluding to with that Cartman/Kyle dig.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-21 22:45 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-21 22:46 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-21 22:48 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-22 03:58 (UTC)And with South Park, Jesus Christ! I got spoiled on the Live Action thing. I would have preferred not knowing that one but still LOVED that episode. The rest.. I mean... seriously? ARG.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-22 22:38 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-22 14:20 (UTC)http://www.nickwoodhams.com/post/31988005655
There are definitely some things I'd prefer to experience um, organically? in terms of SP -- like seeing the live action scene having no idea that it was coming or what the actors would look like, that was a fun surprise for me. If I'd seen a billion gif sets beforehand, though, it probably would have just added to my excitement. With SP I feel like it can really go either way in terms of information being revealed as you're watching or beforehand, probably because I just crave that info in any form so I can twist it into sinister gay sex storylines. I would have been excited to learn that Kenny was Mysterion whether someone told me or I saw it in the episode. But if I was watching some serious drama like Mad Men where the actors are really ~delivering the moment~ or whatever and a big plot twist was spoiled, I'd be disappointed that I couldn't see it unfold as it was intended. I'd still watch the episode and be excited about the twist, though. I'm only sensitive to spoilers in stuff like HP (good example), where 'what happens next' is pretty much it.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-22 17:41 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-22 22:35 (UTC)I totally agree about that live action scene; being surprised by it was fun and part of the thrill. But I guess the point I'd make is that that live scene wasn't in the previews. They shot it well in advance and none of the promotional material was like "South Park goes live-action on an episode of zip-lining!" or whatever. The preview clips SP sends out are never key to the episode like that, so people reblogging the preview for that episode wouldn't have spoiled it.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-22 17:39 (UTC)But, like, take the Walking Dead, for example. I don't have TV, so if I want to watch it I have to find a feed (which is a pain in the ass) or wait until it's on Netflix... which means by the time I see it, everything will be spoiled by the internet. And that bothers me because I love suspense. So. Yeah.
....But really, South park fans will wank over just about anything.
no subject
Date: 2012-09-22 22:27 (UTC)I get being conscious of Walking Dead spoilers, since that seems like, you know, an episodic show with a lot of continuity where events have real ramifications.