What does Spoiler mean? Spoiler (works of fiction) Meanings of the word Spoiler

Spoiler(jarch from spoil - “to spoil”) - in cinema, computer games, literature - prematurely revealed important plot information that destroys the intrigue conceived by the authors, does not allow it to be experienced, felt independently, and accordingly deprives the viewer/player/reader of some part pleasure from this plot, which spoils the impression of it.

Some films begin or end with a spoiler warning. For example, the classic thriller “She-Devils” (1955) ends with the request: “Don’t be like the she-devils! Don't deprive your friends who may be interested in this movie from enjoying it. Don't tell them what you saw. Thank you on their behalf.”

Legal side

Sivelga = spoiler = Collaboration Satire and humor. Available to everyone online. News, News Today, Health, Water, The Smell of Friday, author's video, B...

During the creation of some films, a written non-disclosure agreement regarding plot information is concluded with the participants in the filming. There are known cases of litigation regarding violation of these agreements (for example, Steven Spielberg sued one of the actors who starred in his film “

0 On the Internet you can find many unfamiliar expressions and words, many of which are shrouded in the fog of mystery, for example, "AYSOS", "Adults Only", "Honk", "", etc. Many of us like to read books or watch movies, and quite those who reveal the plot of the work in advance are not welcome. Sometimes you just want people like this" kill"so that they do not reveal the ending. Since people have such a peculiarity as ruining the lives of their loved ones, this has its own designation Spoiler. What does Spoiler mean?? This term comes from the English word " Spoil", which can be translated as "Spoil".

Spoiler- this is some information that can spoil the impression of a book or film, and to one degree or another reveals the plot of the work.

Example:

Why did you tell me the end of the film, some spoilers just hit me in the face for such spoilers!

Meanings of the word Spoiler

First value.A spoiler is a retelling of a book or film with full disclosure of the plot and especially the ending. To help you understand exactly what a Spoiler is, just imagine that you are reading a detective story and then your wife tells you who the killer is.
After that, she innocently bats her eyes and goes back to the kitchen. From this we can conclude that by telling the reader a Spoiler, you can not only spoil his further reading, but also enrage a person. For example, here's a spoiler for the film "The Diamond Arm", the main villain turned out to be an inconspicuous man who appears only a couple of times during the film, he was played by Nikolai Romanov.

Second meaning. Spoiler is car part, which, using aerodynamics (air flows), presses the car to the asphalt, adding stability to it. The principle of action is like the wings of an airplane, only with the opposite effect.

After reading this informative article, you learned Spoiler what does it mean, and now you won’t be afraid to use this word in your vocabulary.

This is prematurely revealed plot information that destroys the intrigue intended by the authors and deprives the viewer of some of the pleasure from the work of art. Our viewers have always known what spoilers are no worse than American ones; the man from the famous Soviet joke, who, after quarrels with his wife, wrote the name of the murderer on the covers of detective stories she was reading with a marker, did exactly that - he spoiled it. However, only in the new century did spoilers become a true scourge of pop culture. However, is it a scourge? Oddly enough, the answer to this seemingly obvious question still needs clarification.

The term “spoiler” comes from the English word “spoil” and in its current sense is believed to have been first used in the TV series Doctor Who in the 60s. The word quickly caught on, and in 1971, the humor magazine National Lampoon published an article with the self-explanatory title “Spoilers,” revealing important plot details of many popular films of the time (a few years ago, the clothing manufacturer Threadless joked in a similar way, releasing T-shirts emblazoned with inscriptions like “ Snape will kill Dumbledore" or "Tyler Durden does not exist"). But in the pre-digital era, such media antics were like grain to the viewer: National Lampoon did not have such power over the minds as today’s TV and Internet, and the viewer most often went to the cinema, knowing nothing about the latest release and guided only by the poster. The plot intrigue remained even several weeks after the start of distribution, because the maximum the viewer could retell the content of the film to was his relatives and friends, and it was still unknown whether they would want to listen to it.

Not so now. In the 90s, the Internet appeared, and with it thematic forums where films and - naturally - their endings were discussed. With the help of search engines, this information began to easily fall out before the clear eyes of unsuspecting ordinary people who did not want to know anything like that. Then film studios got involved, having discovered the marketing potential of the Internet, and long before the releases they began to inundate users with trailers, excerpts, videos about the making, TV spots and other materials, altogether retelling the plot in some detail. For example, The Island by Michael Bay fell victim to its own trailer, which failed at the box office, believed to be due to the fact that the film's promotional video revealed too many secrets - viewers who watched the film and did not find any additional plot twists in it , which would not have been featured in the trailer, were left disappointed and created a negative “sundress” for the film, which led to its box office fiasco. The third blow to the film industry was dealt by onlookers and paparazzi, armed mobile phones with powerful built-in cameras and began to leak photo and video spoilers onto the Internet in batches directly from film sets. In the age of digital media, having exclusive information can not only make you famous for a short time, but also make you rich, so the spread of spoilers and the fight against them has become one of the main problems in Hollywood.

The Internet, of course, consists not only of those who litter with spoilers - there are many more people on it who would like to avoid these spoilers. In their interests, users developed rules of good manners that required prefacing controversial information with the words “CAUTION! SPOILER!" or cover the spoiler with a block of the same color as the font, so that you can read it by selecting it with the mouse. Similar demands are often put forward to reviewers from the media, whose reviews of new films can be full of spoilers (a relatively recent scandal surrounding a review of Scream 4 posted on the Rotten Tometoes website, the author of which told readers who the killer was in the very first sentence, is widely known). Critic Roger Ebert wrote a program column in 2005 in which he suggested that his colleagues stop retelling movie plots in their articles - after all, even if their critical article talks about some old movie, among the readers there will always be quite a lot of young people who still haven’t seen “Citizen Kane” and “Psycho”; moreover, there are even readers who still don’t know whose son Luke Skywalker is. Ebert himself, to his credit, really tried to adhere to this rule, but he was a man of the old school, growing up in a time when anyone could not become a film critic in five minutes, and such hotbeds of spoilers as Wikipedia did not even exist in the project.

Yes, Wikipedia. The resource, supposedly bringing education to the masses, comes into conflict with the interests of the film industry when it comes to very recent film releases. Henry Joost and Ariel Shulman's film "How I Befriended on a Social Network" was first shown at the Sundance Film Festival, and information about its plot immediately appeared on the Wiki page dedicated to the project. The disaster was that there was still a lot of time left before the official release, and the plot of the film was such that any spoilers would negatively affect its box office receipts. But, according to the authors of the tape, any of their attempts to erase the prematurely posted information led to nothing: it was strictly returned to its place, and it was never possible to find a common language with the management of the resource: Wikipedia representatives replied that this is the site’s policy, to provide complete and comprehensive information about any things and phenomena.

In today's Hollywood, obsessed with long-running franchises, it is often impossible to talk about a new film without revealing the ending of the previous one - for this reason, the fight against spoilers according to Ebert's recipe threatens any author with getting involved in a battle with windmills. Some television networks are fighting the disclosure of information quite radically: since reviewers do not have the intelligence or skill to keep spoilers to themselves, they are given fresh episodes of series that do not have the final 10 minutes to review. Film studios do the same thing at press screenings when they don’t want the ending of a particularly anticipated film to come out too early. Some directors shoot multiple endings at once to confuse their own team members, not all of whom they can trust. But this only works if the secret information has not leaked onto the Internet first; the latter is often facilitated not only by the paparazzi prowling around film studios in herds, but also by the project participants themselves, which causes real paranoia among directors, the more expensive the project entrusted to them costs (McG, for example, boasted on the eve of the premiere of “Terminator: May the Savior Come”, that only 4 people in the whole world know the real ending of the film, and everyone else feeds on misinformation that he personally launched onto the Internet).

The writer Robert Bloch, who wrote the novel Psycho, said that Alfred Hitchcock, having been inspired by the idea of filming it, anonymously bought the copyright and bought all the copies of the book that he could find in open sale, - he really didn’t want curious citizens to find out ahead of time who the killer was. At the beginning of the film, he additionally made an insert in which he asked viewers not to retell the plot to anyone, so as not to spoil the viewing experience for other people. Today, such a development of events is, for obvious reasons, impossible; and although studios still continue to buy the rights to film adaptations of their books from writers, they do not like to take risks and only proceed with the case if the novel has become a bestseller - in this case, you can count on the writer’s fans to ensure that the theaters are filled. Of course, they try to combat the predictability of the plot as much as possible: either they will come up with a new ending for the story (as in “The Mist” by Stephen King), or they will take only the general plot outline from the original source (as in “The Walking Dead”, which strayed quite far from the original series of comics), then completely building an alternative plot with completely new characters (as in the remake of “The Evil Dead”). But the Internet will still interfere in the fate of the project - whether the authors want it or not.

Countries that have the opportunity to see the release first suffer least from spoilers. Because any premiere is a Pandora's box, and once the lid is thrown back, you can't push the bowl back into it. The Internet will immediately be flooded with spoilers, and film companies and television networks will not be able to do anything about it. Lately, however, the paranoia surrounding spoilers has become quite tiring for film producers: too much effort is being devoted to fighting it. Instead, the realization comes that you can’t cook scrambled eggs without breaking eggs: if you want everyone to talk about your film, leaking a certain number of spoilers into the general flow of advertising information still cannot be avoided. Netflix recently launched a website dedicated to spoilers and, in a survey of users, found that 76% of Americans consider spoilers a “necessary evil” that cannot be avoided (in Britain only 24% are fatalists). At the same time, 58% of Americans feel guilty about ruining someone else’s movie viewing with a heavy spoiler (interestingly, among the “irreconcilable” British this figure is much lower - 37%, that is, they are generally less tolerant of other people’s spoilers than their own, and the Americans - on the contrary).

For that matter, even the list of actors published on the IMDb portal can shed light on the events of a particular film long before its premiere (for example, anyone can easily find out about the return of characters who were considered dead). Therefore, the number of cases when a film company posts an overly revealing trailer online is only increasing. And TV channels deliberately arrange official “leaks” that anger viewers and thereby only increase the ratings of the TV show.

The television network AMC caused the most noise by informing the world on Twitter and Facebook about the death of one of the main characters of The Walking Dead a few minutes after the first viewers saw this death. The eloquent photo, which became a source of information, caused an avalanche of complaints from fans of the series living in other countries and had not yet seen the ill-fated episode - the subsequent deletion of the photo from Facebook with an official apology only fueled the passions, and find out what caused the fuss , even people who didn’t really follow The Walking Dead wanted it. As a result, the scandalous episode of the series set a new rating record for the number of viewers who watched it, which made many suspect the television network of malicious intent: after all, if they really wanted to hide information about their mistake, they would have also deleted the photo from Twitter, where it , while Facebook was burning with indignation, everyone examined it in detail.

How to protect yourself from spoilers? The simplest recipe: unsubscribe from communities in which such information most often appears, even if these are official groups of TV channels and TV studios. You can also stop going online altogether while waiting for this or that premiere, which is what some people do who are paranoid about spoilers. Sometimes this is truly justified, as in the case of The Cabin in the Woods, the reviewers of which unanimously repeated: “Don’t read anything about this film and run away from anyone who tries to tell you about it, and instead go straight to the cinema!” But more often it is customary to avoid other people’s retellings simply out of inertia, just in case, out of the conviction that any spoilers are evil. Meanwhile, the case of a member of the Spanish government, who, in the first days of the release of the mystical horror film “The Others,” voiced the plot of the film as a metaphor at parliamentary debates live and spoiled the whole country’s viewing pleasure, teaches us that spoilers can come from anywhere, and if so , is there any point in running away from them at all? Moreover, a few years ago, Wired magazine published the results of an interesting experiment that could change the way we look at spoilers as such.

In a 2013 experiment conducted by San Diego-based scientists Nicholas Christenfeld and Jonathan Leavitt, several dozen students were given 12 different classic stories, ranging from Anton Chekhov's "The Wager" to Ambrose Bierce's "An Incident on Owl Creek Bridge." and asked them to read it. Some of the printouts were no different from the book text, and some contained a spoiler in the middle, revealing the ending and framed for clarity. After participants in the experiment were asked to rate what they read, a curious thing emerged: EVERY story with a spoiler was rated slightly higher overall by them than the one that did not contain a spoiler.

What conclusions can be drawn here? Avoiding spoilers today has become a new habit of society, and world literature since the times of ancient Greek tragedies has consisted of completely predictable plots, and yet neither Homer nor Shakespeare lose popularity. Apparently, it is important for the viewer/reader not only “what”, but also “how” (after all, the very mention of the genre of the film is to a certain extent a spoiler and hints at what to expect from it, but this does not bother anyone). The researchers probably believe that the importance of the sweet shock of unexpected endings is somewhat overestimated by society - moreover, it is possible that some predictability is the secret to the success of certain plots. Without knowing what to expect from the plot, you don’t expect anything. Having some information, you will only wonder more and more how the author will lead you to this moment.

This, however, is just a guess. Time will tell what the experiments of Christenfeld and Leavitt actually say. And, probably, they are not true for every case (there are also special situations: it is unlikely that a viewer who has picked up spoilers will get the same pleasure from “The Sixth Sense” as one who has no idea about the ending of the tape). But what is for sure is that we want to review good films not because of the ending, but for the sake of previously unnoticed details - otherwise would we waste time on them a second time? And real masterpieces are not afraid of any spoilers.

Prematurely revealed important plot information, which destroys the intrigue conceived by the authors, does not allow you to experience it, feel it yourself and, accordingly, deprives the viewer/player/reader of some of the pleasure from this plot, thereby spoiling the impression of it. In addition to revealing plot information, a spoiler can be emotional. An emotional spoiler is a type of information spoiler, characterized by the premature disclosure of upcoming emotions, the time and place of their experience.

Some films begin or end with a spoiler warning. For example, the classic thriller “She-Devils” (1954) ends with the request: “Don’t be like the she-devils! Don't deprive your friends who may be interested in this movie from enjoying it. Don't tell them what you saw. Thank you on their behalf.”

Douglas Kenny was one of the first to use this term in his article “Spoilers,” published in 1971 in the magazine National Lampoon.

Legal side