[QUOTE=Dewey Finn]
My question was meant as a serious one. Do we expect one to use spoiler tags on any work of fiction, no matter how old? Or once a movie, say, was released a while back, one can assume that anyone who wanted to see it already has and spoiler tags are not necessary?
[/QUOTE]
You’re asking me when politeness is no longer necessary. I’ve answered that question, I think. Speaking personally, in reference to the Dope rule prohibiting people from being a jerk, I’d have to consider “someone who thinks politeness should have a statute of limitations” as good a definition of “jerk” as any.
[QUOTE=Otto] Link to the spoilers post in the Rules sticky thread. May we please not have the discussion on spoiler tags again? At least not in this thread?
[/QUOTE]
Sorry about that. I didn’t mean to derail the thread.
[QUOTE=lissener]
One would hope that the experience of seeing this movie would include the experience of learning about a time and place–not to mention a difficult personal situation–that was unfamiliar to you. Instead, all you’ve done is apply your own limited experience and standards to a situation that you know absolutely *nothing *about. (In other words, you mistyped “three” in your thread title.)
[/QUOTE]
Would it be wrong to describe The Sopranos as the story of a sociopathic muderer jerk? Or can I not comment because I can only apply my limited experience?
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Would it be wrong to describe The Sopranos as the story of a sociopathic muderer jerk? Or can I not comment because I can only apply my limited experience?
[/QUOTE]
If you don’t see the difference, I’m not gonna waste any more time here.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Would it be wrong to describe The Sopranos as the story of a sociopathic muderer jerk? Or can I not comment because I can only apply my limited experience?
[/QUOTE]
Let me sum up the story so far:
You: “Brokeback Mountain is the story of two jerks.”
The rest of us: “No, it’s not, here’s why.”
You: “Can’t I just say what I want without the rest of you commenting?”
TROU: “No.”
You: “But I just want to throw something provocative out there and see who bites then complain I can’t say what I want.”
TROU: “Welcome to the Dope. We don’t play that.”
[QUOTE=lissener]
. . . or, you could spend a moment considering, “Hmm, I wonder why what I’ve said in this thread so far has been interpreted like this?”
[/QUOTE]
Or maybe you could explain the difference between describing BM as the story of two jerks and TS as the story of a sociopathic jerk.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
I never said any such thing.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, but what are you expecting? You can’t ask, "can I not comment … " without expecting comment.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
What is the difference?
[/QUOTE]
Your statement, while true, is only a part of the larger picture. To reduce the analysis of a story to a glib, negative statement strongly implies that you don’t see beyond your statement. That may be an unfair assessment of your position, but you haven’t rebutted with any deeper analyses of your own.
Yes, do we really need spoiler boxes even for something that is so well-known?
Soylent Green is people !!!
Two and a Half Inches of Fun stated:
Oh yeah, I’m sure 2 guys living way back when could have easily entered into a domestic partnership without having to be concerned about the prejudices of that era. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=wolf_meister]
Oh yeah, I’m sure 2 guys living way back when could have easily entered into a domestic partnership without having to be concerned about the prejudices of that era.
[/QUOTE]
Two men could have established such a relationship at that time, but not in that place. Large urban areas had well-established gay communities as far back as the late 40s or early 50s. If Jack and Ennis had known of them, and been cognitively and emotionally able to identify themselves as people who would live in such areas, then they could have. But they didn’t know (at least Ennis didn’t, although Jack appeared to have a better awareness of at least where he could go to find male sex partners) and they couldn’t self-identify as such.
[QUOTE=Otto]
Two men could have established such a relationship at that time, but not in that place. Large urban areas had well-established gay communities as far back as the late 40s or early 50s. If Jack and Ennis had known of them, and been cognitively and emotionally able to identify themselves as people who would live in such areas, then they could have. But they didn’t know (at least Ennis didn’t, although Jack appeared to have a better awareness of at least where he could go to find male sex partners) and they couldn’t self-identify as such.
[/QUOTE]
Jack said there were two guys that he knew of who lived together. He suggested that he and Ennis do the same thing.
[QUOTE=Otto]
Two men could have established such a relationship at that time, but not in that place. Large urban areas had well-established gay communities as far back as the late 40s or early 50s. If Jack and Ennis had known of them, and been cognitively and emotionally able to identify themselves as people who would live in such areas, then they could have. But they didn’t know (at least Ennis didn’t, although Jack appeared to have a better awareness of at least where he could go to find male sex partners) and they couldn’t self-identify as such.
[/QUOTE]
Even this, I think, is a bit oversimplified. Even in New York City, such men had to live circumspectly. Certainly pre-Stonewall. And I don’t know when discrimination laws began to cover gays, but surely not in the era covered by Brokeback. There’s no question that life was easier in NYC than in Montana, but it was still, what, 40 years ago.
And for Jack and Ennis to pack up and move to a metropolitan area such as NYC would be unthinkable. They were ranchers. They lived and breathed to be in the western wilderness. It’s ludicrous to think that it was as simple as moving to a more gay-friendly area.
[QUOTE=lissener]
If you have to ask, then what possible problem could you have with erring on the side of politeness?
[/QUOTE]
Reading text inside spoiler tags is annoying for a number of reasons.