That’s a bit off, since the real spoiler would be whether Jack survives or not. And that does matter.
You know, that’s exactly why I didn’t go to see it. Well, that and the fact that it looked like a melodramatic piece of dreck.
In other words, from your moral high ground, you take into your hands to amend their idiotic ways, rather than respecting their wishes and following the rules that they expect to be followed.
Why do you mind so much that some people just don’t like being spoiled? Is it a holy crusade of sort? Why do you think it’s up to you to decide what is worth or not worth to be spoiler-free? What you’re doing is plainly decide what other people should know, should like, should feel.
Whatever you’re talking about might have been printed all over the medias you read. But maybe I don’t belong to your crowd, and never read/watch these medias, and as a result I’m totally unware about the cast in such or such serie. Maybe I never watched this 10 year old movie, but intend to do so, and the fact that it’s 10 years old don’t change the fact that I don’t like spoilers.
Mentionning in your thread title that it will contain spoilers cost you nothing. But you’d rather decide what I shouldn’t mind to know. Whether or not it’s going to ruin the experience for me is irrelevant to you, because I don’t think/feel the way you do, I didn’t watch the things you watched, I’ve no interest in reading articles about the cast of some serie that you like reading, and so on. And in your mind, I should. I should think like you, aprecciate the same think you do or else I belong to the despicable “hypersentive few” who, really, need your help to come to their senses.
In short, you’re judgemental and clueless about the meaning of the word “respect”. I can only hope that you’re quite young and someday will understand that not everybody who thinks differently about trivial things is an utter moron who needs to be enlightened by your wisdom, against his will if necessary.
I honestly think that you overestimate how difficult it is for people to remain relatively or even absolutely unspoiled. If someone only watches Buffy and Angel on the WB, for example, and they don’t watch reruns over summer, they’re not going to see the network’s promos no matter how many times they show up during reruns of Everwood.
That said, I also think that spoilers are more or less appropriate depending on the kind of discussion that’s taking place. If people want to discuss the themes of The Village, or Buffy as a whole, and make that clear from the beginning of the conversation, I don’t think it’s necessary to box every spoiler. People who don’t want spoilers can stay out – hence the threads with titles that include unboxed spoiler alerts.
But if people want to know if it’s worth watching The Village, or getting into Buffy, without having plot elements spoiled, boxes are entirely appropriate and naked discussion of spoilers isn’t. And I think this holds true even with older works – why does Wuthering Heights deserve less consideration in a “should I read this?” thread than the latest installment of the Dark Tower series? But because it’s been around for over a century, WH is more likely to inspire “let’s discuss the themes” conversations that assume knowledge of the plot elements.
Finally, it’s just as rude to blithely give away spoilers and get huffy when called on it as it is to have a meltdown every time someone accidentally discusses a scenes-from-next-week promo.
So, you don’t get that there’s a difference between respect and having to tread broken glass to avoid offending that shrill shrieking tiny minority who takes not wanting to have the experience of viewing a new movie/TV episode/book/whatever to the point of total irrationality? Or have you just not actually been reading my posts.
Some people don’t want to have plot points spoiled. I get that. I respect that. If I’m discussing, oh, the second half of the last season of Angel or a recently released movie (or one that simply hasn’t been out on video for a respectable length of time), I’ll use the spoiler tags. Well, actually, since CK Dexter Haven has pointed out it might be a year or two before a TV show airs in some counties, I’ll respect that.
With new art, it’s a matter of respect.
But when you’re talking about an older work that’s been viewed, reviewed, out on video for years, talked about in break rooms in every workplace on the planet, analyzed to death in the media, well, there has to be a point when what was once spoilage becomes common knowledge. Ditto for a TV show that’s been in syndcation for a few years.
And really, to ream someone because they talked about a much-hyped cast change on a TV show because you wanted to be surprise… I mean, really, sooner or later you’re going to stumble across the information. The network is doing everything it can to make sure everyone possible knows about it in order to insure the maximum possible viewership.
In casual conversation about TV shows, movies, whatever, I do make it a point to ask, “Do you mind spoilers?” because I do, in fact, understand the fact that some people want to be surprised. But if you’re talking about an older work, it’s generally a safe assumption that if someone hasn’t seen it, they have at least heard about it.
Anyhoo, even if someone does spoil a work for you, it is an annoyance, sure. But to want to rend someone limb from limb over the issue, that’s just… I don’t know what.
You don’t have to tread broken glass. You just have to warn people that your thread will contain spoilers in ther thread title. But aparently, it’s too much effort an effort for you. On this board, spoilers are supposed to be avoided. People reading the threads expect them to be spoiler-free. You have many choices :
-Adding spolier boxes in your posts
-Add a spoiler warning in your thread title so that people who don’t want to read spoilers won’t open it
-Post on another board where spoilers aren’t banned
-Not post at all
But that’s not good enough for you. You’ve decided all by yourself what is or isn’t an acceptable behavior and what people should think/feel about it. And you’re determined not to follow any rule except your owns, and to impose your views on other posters. It’s akin to playing loud music in a library on the basis that you, personnally, aren’t bothered by music when reading/working, so nobody else should be bothered, either, except the “oversensitive few” hence that you have every right to impose your loud music on them, the rules about silence be damned!! That no-loud-music crowd needs to be taught a lesson and amend its way.
And what makes you think that it’s a “tiny minority”, exactly? Do you have some datas handy? The fact that there’s a sticky on this issue, that spoiler boxes are provided, etc… in itself is some evidence that a significant number of people don’t want to read spoilers.
But of course, you’re the ultimate arbitrer about what can be spoiled or not and how people should feel about it. Likes rules or respect are going to apply to someone like you.
What is “irrational” exactly? I never watched “Arthur”. I never watched the “Maltese falcon”, either. Why would spoiling the latter be less an annoyance for me than spoiling the former? Either it’s irrationnal to dislike spoilers in general, either it isn’t. In my former example, it would like saying : “playing loud country music should be avoided in libraries, but playing loud jazz is only an issue for irrationnal shrieking tiny minority”. Why? Because I say so.
You aren’t the judge of what people should think or like. You can easily avoid annoying anybody and post whatever you want just with a simple “spoiler ahead” mention.
But…well, no! You obviously must impose spoilers on other people, and you’re the only judge of what they should want to read or not (books older than 5 years, infos which have been mentionned in your favorite media, etc…). Apparently, it’s your holy duty to make sure that us pagans will see the errors in our ways, and eventually understand that being spoiled about a movie we never saw isn’t annoying anymore because you watched it two years ago or read about it two weeks ago.
Since it’s obvious that you haven’t actually read my posts, except to find bits that you can quote out of context and rail against, I’m not going try to argue with you.
You are doing a wonderful job of proving my point, by the way.
oh, and Interrobang!?, your point is taken.
If I read a thread that has an upcoming movie title in the thread title and it gets spoiled, shame on me. If I’m reading a thread about cool movies and someone ambushes me with a spoiler, shame on them.
If both sides are considerate and careful, nobody cries. Simple as that.
Respek.
I also don’t get why older works are exempt from spoiler consideration. Maybe I know already that Rosebud is the sled, maybe I don’t. (WRT Dex’s point that this piece of information is entirely non-critical, I can only say that I’ve always wondered whether my experience of seeing Citizen Cane would have been different had I not known. I’ll never know.) Maybe I know who Luke’s father is, maybe I don’t. Certainly most people know these things, but not everyone. I don’t understand the idea that for the rest of history, no one should ever have the experience of being surprised by a work of fiction if it’s more than 12 monthe old. Recently, someone spoiled Murder on the Orient Express for me. As old as the movie and book are, I had absolutely no idea how the plot ended until I was told. I had been planning for quite some time to watch the movie, but hadn’t gotten around to it. It should go without saying, but I will point out that this movie is a mystery, the enjoyment of which is (for me and many others) heavily dependant on the, ahem, mystery surrounding the ending. (This happened in real life, BTW, so no one here is at fault.)
Now I’m not spoiler-phobic. I understand that people make mistakes, and that older works especially come up in conversations where protecting plot points is not foremonst on one’s mind. If I’m writing about the significance of the sled in the idealization of late 19th century childhood, it may not occur to me that someone hasn’t seen Citizen Cane, or the context may make it awkward to separate part of my thought as a spoiler. Nevertheless, to declare that one has no intention whatsoever of respecting people’s desire not to have older works spoiled, to go out of one’s way to spoil several of them, and to proclaim anyone who might have such a desire “shrill,” “shreiking” and “irrational” strikes me as meanspirited and unsympathetic.
Like I said, don’t walk on eggshells–I’ll forgive an occasional and honest slip, even a necessary allusion. But please don’t be a jerk about it.
:eek: 
Doesn’t that rob the reader of the ENTIRE POINT of reading a mystery? (And I’m talking about REAL mysteries, not the “suspense-thriller” genre that often gets lumped into the Mystery section of most bookstores.) I just don’t understand the desire, here.
I think I covered that when I said
OK, I did not go out of my way to spoil anything. The only unboxed spoiler I have put in this thread was something I assumed, apparently mistakenly, that any interested parties would already know about. Also, I did not characterize people who generally prefer to remain unspoiled as “shrill, shrieking and irrational”. I have stated more than once that I respect the desire for people to be unspoiled. The people I characterized as SS&I are the ones who carry their desire to be unspoiled to an extreme that they will tear your head of over revealing minor details that could be picked up in a promo, or over inadvertantly dropping a bit of spoilage not realizing that there are significant numbers of people who haven’t had an opportunity to experience a piece of art, or who go off on you like clairobscur did over even suggesting that after a given period of time a work will have been so talked about in fora public and private that discussing plot details doesn’t really qualify as spoilage anymore.
Of course, if you had actually read my previous posts, you know, for their total content and in context, you would know this.
At this point, I am going to ask CK Dexter Haven to close this thread, because it is showing signs of turning into a train wreck.
[sub]note to self- quit responding to posts when it is readily apparent that the person posting has not actually read my posts beyond looking for out-of-context points to take issue with. too much wear and tear on the nervous system.[/sub]
I did read your posts. I was disagreeing with them and, I thought, answering your question about why spoilers bothered people. I thought I was responding reasonably and clearly. I understood you to be saying that you would not accomodate people’s requests not to have older works spoiled, and giving (admittedly tounge-in-cheek, but nevertheless real) examples of how you would do this. If I misunderstood, I appologize, but please don’t imply I haven’t read your posts.
I would just as soon this thread NOT be closed, since I was enjoying the discussion of when and why older spoilers should be boxed, and I don’t feel like starting a new thread over it. Of course, you may bow out of the discussion gracefully if you wish.
Alan, I guess I owe you an apology. Your post happened to land on a raw nerve. Being taken out of context is a really sore point with me, and in the light of certain previous posts, I was feeling a bit irritable.
Actually, I think starting a new thread on when and whether spoilers for older works should be boxed is a good idea, even if I hadn’t requested this thread be closed, just because this one is taking a decidedly nasty turn and the discussion could potentially get lost in the fireworks. Incidentally, I think that with older works, if the film is well- and widely known, boxes could be dispensed with, for the reasons I’ve already mentioned. For a more obscure work, for example Repo Man or, if you want to talk books, Illuminatus, boxes should be used since only a sliver of people may have actually even heard of, let alone experienced them. In cases like that, there is a high likelihood that someone ambling through the boards may see the works referred to, be curious, but not want to be spoiled.
anyhoo, no hard feelings?
Apology accepted. 
Everyone knows what it’s like to suddenly feel ganged up on for no reason.
I don’t think I’ll be the one to start another thread, because I’ve said everything here I have to say, and I suspect I could search and find old threads about it.
It’s been an interesting discussion, though. Did you gain an answer to you question?
Not really. I mean, yeah, I do get how spoilage can ruin a work of art for some people, and if you are one of those who prefers to be unspoiled, it can be a bummer, but I still don’t get the “string 'em up by the ovaries” reactions. I mean, really, it’s only entertainment, after all.
Hmm…Well I’ll see what I can do in the precious few minutes (or hours or days, depending on what Dex is up to at the moment) this thread has left…
First of all, I suspect that most anti-unboxed spoiler folks take their entertainment a bit more seriously than pro-spoiler folks, on average at least. I don’t mean fanatical conventiona-going levels, necesarily, but, well, some people get into movies and books more than others. For some, it’s almost just white noise while they’re relaxing. For others, thinking about the plot or getting emotionally involved in the characters’ lives is a natural and important part of even light-hearted entertainment. And sometimes, of course, it isn’t just entertainment, but art.
Secondly and more significantly, I think for those of us who dislike unanticipated spoilers, recieving one is such an obviously unpleasant experience, that we assume others feel the same way. I would almost never post a spoiler without worrying about how others will read it, beacuse I’ve had things spoiled for me before. It’s not walking on eggshells, it’s just natural. We just assume, therefore, without even thinking about it, that a person who spoils things without warning or boxing is either being really thoughtless or really careless. Until reading this thread, it probably wouldn’t have occured to me that the other poster genuinely didn’t know how it would bother me.
(An exagerated analogy would be if someone in an office repeatedly bumped into me when walking by. I would assume that they either didn’t like me or were too self-absorbed to look where they’re going. It wouldn’t occur to me that they came from a culture [like, say, Manhattan] where bumping into people as you pass is perfectly normal and not to be avoided.)
Finally, well, isn’t it always the little things that are the most annoying?
And then:
Not in so many words. Angry, rabid mutilators maybe, but not shrill, shrieking or irrational.
I don’t think older works have to be exempt, either. I didn’t see Citizen Kane till I was about 24 or 25 (around 1988, I think), when movie rentals made it possible. Before that I would have had to catch it on a late-night TV showing.
The whole “Rosebud” thing had already been spoiled for me, but I wanted to see it anyway.
As Alan Smithee points out, I’ll never know if my enjoyment of the movie would have been different of I hadn’t known about Rosebud beforehand. I think it would have been better if I didn’t know.
My daughter is 16 - would you (the people who insist on spoiling things) spoil it for her, insisting that since it’s older and has been available for rental for years, she should have seen it by now?
If your daughter is 16, people are more likely to assume that she will never be interested in Citizen Kane because its an incredibly OLD movie. Therefore, why does it matter if it is spoiled? Some people make stupid assumptions about what people will or will not enjoy in terms of entertainment. (I’m thinking of the recent announcement that some of the 3 Stooges? will be released in color- It’s something humorous that I don’t think would appeal to me which they hope to colorize to appeal to the under 30 crowd, who wouldn’t watch black and white movies. If the under 30 crowd wouldn’t watch it in black and white, why do the producers assume that they would watch really old stuff that has been colorized? Beyond me, but that’s a discussion for another thread).