(no subject)
I'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.