Originally Posted by hitchfan
Lawrence of Arabia
Yes. (I mentioned in my earlier post that one of my spoilers utterly trivialized a grand epic, and this was it. -- good job!)
(btw, if this is correct, aren't some of these entries drifting into Three Word or Less Synopses rather than Three Word or Less SPOILERS? I mean, it isn't much of a spoiler to hear that Lawrence goes to where sand is in Lawrence of Arabia, is it? It would be something a rather unconventional publicist in 1962 might want to put in bold print on the movie poster. And I've noticed several others drifting into that category, which adds confusion in that we're trying to figure out what it gives away in a movie rather than what it simply describes about a movie that anyone looking at the poster could already know. Just askin'. I'm suspecting "Dinner party corpse" might fall into that category as well, no? But a spoiler would be that the "prof reveals corpse" or something to that effect...?)
Good points, all. Of course some of them are genuine spoilers. It's great if you can actually spoil a classic film in three or fewer words, but that's only really if there's a reveal or a twist or a mystery to solve, isn't it? I mean, it almost has to be a thriller or a mystery film in order to be spoiled, right?
How would you "spoil" Lawrence of Arabia, anyway? What is there to spoil? He sort of unites a bunch of feuding tribes in the desert during the first WW and dies years later in a trivial motorcycle accident? "Tom unites, crashes?" I had a lot more fun utterly trivializing David Lean's grand, sweeping masterpiece in three words. "English" was a clue, as that is what Ali Sherif calls him. "Gets sandy?" I mean, come on? How silly is that? That was the point, and now that I have explained the humor, it is gone.
I have no problem with posters "drifting into" summarizing a film in two or three words or providing a synopsis, as you put it.
Dinner party corpse is indeed in that category, and I actually like your suggested spoiler better (and obviously you know what film it is). Rather than truly spoiling the film, I gave away its premise, I suppose. You've got a good point, but this is supposed to be a fun game, not a rules lawyering fest (I'm actually a lawyer, so the shoe is sort of on the other foot for me in this role in trying not to be a stickler about the "rules," whatever they are as the players see them).
I saw this as a fun exercise in creative writing for film lovers. I have participated in spoiler games before, but happened by chance and imagination on making the game more interesting by forcing the spoiler to be terribly brief. I picked three words because it forces you to think and edit yourself and be creative (to me the greater fun by far is in coming up with the "spoilers," and not as much in getting the answers, but that's fun too). Again, truly spoiling a film limits you to certain genres, in my opinion, but I have friends who regard telling them anything about a movie other than when it's playing and who stars in it to be "spoiling it," so maybe there is room somewhere in between those two extremes to have a little fun, no?
I never intended to mislead anyone about the point of playing, and I apologize if anyone feels misled or cheated. If you are dissatisfied with some of the "spoilers," well, you don't have to answer them. Frankly, I don't think tightening the rules further is going to make the game any more fun or bring more players into it. If you disagree, then please say so. I'm open to suggestions and criticism, but I don't want to kill the thread, and that's what I'm afraid of doing if we change it further.