New Avengers Doomsday trailer. When I looked at it just now, it hung on 666k likes for about half a minute. So I guess Satan's excited. I'm staying open minded.
I was saying to my brother-in-law yesterday that I'm not sure Robert Downey Jr. is actually playing Doom. I thought it more likely he'd be playing Tony Stark in a Doom mask for some reason. Now I'm wondering if he even does that because Doom noticeably avoids speaking in the trailer.
I suppose there are people who've seen leaked footage who can tell me for sure. I don't really want to know. I don't like spoilers. It wouldn't be fair of me to dislike people who like spoilers. Studios put so much effort into making you want to see something, it's only natural that a lot of people would want to see as much as they can as soon as they can. Before the internet, filmmakers could generally craft their work in peace and they and the audience would be on two lanes of the same endeavour. A filmmaker could just focus on the story and rely on audience anticipation to contribute to the effort of making the resulting film a gift for the community.
I was talking with a barista a week or two ago about it, and she was anticipating my point and said that seeing spoilers goes against the filmmaker's intention. It was one of those moments in conversation where I felt the person I was talking to was less interested in exchanging opinions than she was in making me feel heard. It only occurred to me later, though, so I didn't get to make the point that while, yes, I feel like filmmaker ought to be able to carry out their intentions, I was speaking more to the audience experience than to the filmmaking process. As I said before about short form videos on platforms like Instagram and TikTok, they're less satisfying than feature length films because sequence matters. A funny scene works differently if it comes after a scary scene, etc. People, and the algorithms that schlep for them, are not, by and large, filmmakers and lack the skills and instincts for storytelling. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line people seem to have gotten the idea that there's shame in this, that by not seeing what the magician is doing behind the curtain they're somehow being taken advantage of, the filmmaker is tricking them. Partially, I think this is a byproduct of so much focus being put on the personal lives and misdeeds of beloved filmmakers. People are afraid to let go, to give in to the fictional experience. Ironically, this coincides with an increased interest in non-fiction, which tends to be much closer to the hucksterism that people are afraid of.
But I'm thinking of sensory experience. People feel different if it's a rainy day or a sunny day. Intention has nothing to do with it. Maybe there is a God who decided on the weather but whether or not the two conditions make you feel different has little to do with whether or not someone intended them. And, like the weather, sequence has an emotional impact. When you look at spoilers, you rob yourself of the chance of experiencing the story's proper sequence. Since most people aren't filmmakers or artists, they may have the desire to experience a story but they don't know how to put one together. Spoilers may be a crime against the filmmaker, but they're more of a crime against the audience that indulges in them.
But as my little nephew said at one point yesterday, "That's a lot of talking." The beauty of the way things used to be is that no-one would've had to have explained this, I wouldn't be deploying an explanation that would most likely not be heard or appreciated. Most people couldn't access spoilers so they were forced to trust the story by default. But audiences have been robbed of this: worse, they've been manipulated into robbing themselves.