Why don't critics include plot twists or endings in their reviews?  Is
it illegal or is it simply unprofessional?  Does it break any copyright
laws?

---

Request for Question Clarification by endo-ga on 07 Nov 2004 14:04 PST

Hi,

I think it's to avoid spoiling the movie/book for those reading the
review. You can read a review to decide whether or not you're going to
buy/rent/watch/read the movie/book, therefore if the plot is revealed
in the review, you lose much of the incentive to go and see it.

Thanks.
endo

---

Clarification of Question by klheller-ga on 07 Nov 2004 16:30 PST

I agree with all of your comments but am interested to see if any
critics, authors, or producers have ever written or spoken about this
subject.

I will never forgive Time magazine for revealing, in its May 1980
review of "The Empire Strikes Back," that Darth Vader is Luke's
father. I was hospitalized and unable to go see the movie yet. I read
that review without knowing that it would contain such a huge
"spoiler." Big bummer.

Three other movies that were partially spoiled when I read reviews
that spilled the beans: "The Sixth Sense," "The Crying Game," and "The
Others."

Because the critics would be hospitalized ?

Bear in mind, they are saprophrites rather than pure parasites

And yet - fully taking account of the comments above - most of us
enjoy watching favourite movies that we've seen before, with whose
endings we're quite familiar. And even on first viewing we often have
a good idea of what the ending will be - we don't really believe James
Bond will be killed, no matter how many perils he undergoes; or that
the boy and girl will succumb to a dread disease in the last reel of a
romcom; and only very rarely does the arch criminal not get his just
deserts. My own theory is that critics don't include plot twists and
surprise endings in their reviews is because they can't be bothered to
follow the plot too closely, and possibly don't hang around until the
end.

People would be up in arms about such actions.  Any good website, for
example, includes a spolier alert before revealing any "surprises".

I suspect that it is convention. These are extracts from various web
sites on how to write a film review.

"Assignments for English 364, Introduction to Film Studies: Independent Filmmakers
...There are also certain conventions, which need to be followed in
review writing. Be sure to include the actors' names after their
characters' names (in parentheses) the first time you use them. Make
sure you've included a plot synopsis in the early portion of your
review, and don't reveal the ending of the film."
http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/showcase2003/textonly/dietrich/writing_assignments.htm

"Don't reveal the ending unless you believe that your audience has
already seen the film. If you need to applaud or criticize the ending,
express your ideas without specifically referring to facts (this is
the only place where not using facts is a good idea). To state that
"the conclusion dissolves into sentimental drivel" or that "ultimately
the director loses focus and lapses into the predictable" gives the
reader the idea of why the ending was not successful without
compromising the element of the unknown."
http://www.wcu.edu/writingcenter/isource.asp?page=freviews.html

"what and how much ought your reader to know? 
in a review, for example, the plot needs to be revealed only in part... 
... and details of the ending? Never!" 
http://www.englishbiz.co.uk/mainguides/explain.htm

Personally, I think that a critic who consistently reveals the ending
would not be invited to the previews.

answerfinder-ga
Google Answers Researcher

Oddly enough, I find that I prefer to know spoilers ahead of time.  I
know some people say that it ruins it for them, but I find that it
increases my enjoyment of the film/book.  I am abviously not alone, as
the community of "spoiler-seekers" is HUGE!  My wife, on the other
hand, would prefer to know as little as possible about the movie
before seeing it.  I guess opposites attract.