This week's question was prompted by this 'ere article over at Televisionary. In a sense, as well as being an interesting topic, it's also one I'm interested in for this 'ere blog, since I have a fairly reasonable policy, I think, but I'd like to know what you think of both the policy and your own views.
When does something stop being a spoiler?
My policy (spelt out longer in the comments at Televisionary) is that until a 'safe time' has elapsed, I'm not going to stick anything on the front page that could spoil, or mention it in the comments. I'm certainly not going to Tweet anything about it. My definition of 'a safe time' is a bit nebulous though. I'm still cloaking stuff about the Engrenages finale, which aired over a week in the UK and a year and a half ago in France. I'd probably feel safe to do it once a programme has aired in both the US and the UK.
I don't know if there's a correct answer, but I know I personally get hacked off when the results of the previous night's The Apprentice get published in the papers the next day on the front page. I think at least 24 hours is generally a reasonable time to give before assuming everyone knows, just in case someone's had the temerity to go out of an evening. I certainly think Tweeting without hashtags to at least give people the chance of filtering out things they don't like should be illegal, and I've unfollowed a couple of people at least for spoiling certain programmes through live Tweeting or Tweeting directly after a programme has finished.
But what are your instincts? When does something stop being a spoiler? When is the onus on the reader/listener to go hide under a rock rather than the speaker/writer to be sensitive? Should blogs have different policies regarding spoilers than regular people who just want to talk about things they liked on television after they've seen them? In fact, should anyone have to have any sensitivity on the subject?
As always, leave a comment with your answer or a link to your answer on your own blog.
November 11, 2009 | Reply
Hmmm. It's safe when the majority of people who are likely to be reading can *reasonably* be expected to know the spoiler already. Obviously this doesn't guarantee that you won't spoil it for someone, so always flag stuff SPOILER -- initially. That would be my take on it.
For e.g, DON'T talk about Mad Men season 3 on your blog without clear spoilers, as it's not aired in the UK yet. But even when it has, I'd still label stuff spoilers until it's been out on DVD for a few months. Then, when season 4 starts, feel free to chatter about season 3 in a more relaxed fashion.
Surely that's the best option? Other things filter through the pop-culture grapevine (like the Sixth Sense twist) so can be freely mentioned these days. And that films 10 years old. Of course, I'm *sure* there are 13 year olds who want to watch Sixth Sense, but know the twist going on because it's always being mentioned. But that's an issue with twist-endings, in general. They lose their impact very quickly for new audiences.
November 11, 2009 | Reply
Personally I think once something is out on DVD and has been for a week or two it's no longer spoiler territory. Before that time people might not have had a chance to watch it, but afterwards I won't accept any excuses.
Learn to bury your head in the sand if you even come near to a spoiler. In other words, open a link to a blog post with a title about a show you haven't seen yet at your own peril.
I do try to avoid spoilers in my post titles and the first paragraph or two.
Twitter is a pain in the backside though, people drop out spoilers on there without even thinking, especially our American cousins.
Shame I wasn't reviewing back when the 6th Sense came out though. I would have gone with the title "Bruce Willis is really dead: A Review of Sixth Sense". Actually I wouldn't, but it's funny to think about.
November 11, 2009 | Reply
Ha. Now you see Rev/Views you've just "spoiled" the Sixth Sense for me as I've never seen it (my excuse? Embroiled with very small children at the time and had no idea what was on cinema/TV). There'll always be someone who hasn't seen something. But I'm broadly with Rob's definition. I try not to spoil on my blog or here. Twitter is difficult I find, because it's so instant, and I've had to catch myself a couple of times. And I didn't accidentally spoil Rob for something once because I'd assumed he'd watched it already.
November 11, 2009 | Reply
I'm with Televisionary.
Quite simply once the book/film/tv show has been published/screened/broadcast in its country of origin. Then it's up to the person not in that country of origin to put their hands over their eyes and fingers in their ears.
It was frustrating after Torchwood 3.0 to see US viewers complaining about British viewers discussing the programme on Twitter especially after episode four, despite the fact they do much the same thing about all of the stuff which gets imported over here.
That said, responsible publishers in a country where it's about to be broadcast could and should be sensitive to the fact that a lot of their readership might have been able to avoid the internet and might want to visit a show cold.
SFX's light system is a good idea in this regard. One of the other genre magazine spoiled the Earth reveal on BSG on the cover weeks before the episode aired in the UK. That was just nasty since there was no way anyone could avoid that.
November 11, 2009 | Reply
Never. Some people still consider plot points from Planet of the Apes or Empire Strikes Back to be spoilers even though the stories are now decades old and part of pop culture.
November 11, 2009 | Reply
I shall cut and paste my response to a similar discussion on the Guardian (at http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tvandradioblog/2009/may/05/avoid-tv-movie-spoilers ):
Surely it's polite to warn people - "hey guys we're spoiling X down here, look away now". Also if most of your site's audience is in the UK, you should respect UK broadcast times. I was rather annoyed this weekend when the TV guide of a national newspaper included a significant spoiler for this week's Mad Men finale. [This was S2]
Discussion is fine: but there's a difference between discussing stuff and putting it up front where even if I wanted to I couldn't avoid it without avoiding the whole site (and surely you don't want that?). For this place, I would suggest, that means headlines and above the fold in RSS feeds and blog indexes should stay spoiler-free. Below the fold and in the comments sections of those articles are fair game.
November 12, 2009 | Reply
Certain things should never be spoiled, no matter how long ago they were offered up to the public:
'Citizen Kane'
'Psycho'
previously mentioned:
'The Sixth Sense'
'Empire Strikes Back'
'Planet of the Apes'
As you can see, I've focused on movies - there's something about them that is timeless and will always be readily available to the general public years later. With TV, it never has had the feel of permanence for the most part (of course there are exceptions).
I see no problem openly discussing how 'The Sopranos' ended without giving warnings first, but not so with movies like "Soylent Green' (even if it isn't so great a film....)
November 12, 2009 | Reply
Twitter is a nightmare for spoilers.
People are going to want to discuss their favourite shows, and Twitter is the most immediate online forum for doing so. You can probably protect yourself by avoiding it for a day or so after though. Even major Twitter storms (like a certain unhappy event in Torchwood: Children of Earth) tend to get buried under the weight of subsequent tweets before too long.
As for spoilers in general... I don't think there's a set time limit. Certain things just seep into the public consciousness after a while. In order to have avoided the ending of Planet of the Apes, for example, you'd have needed to avoid countless tv shows and films since that have referenced it. So I don't think you could blame someone if they accidentally gave it away.
I think it's just a matter of using your common sense. Do you think the people you're talking to / writing for will a) know already and b) care if they don't?
November 12, 2009 | Reply
I don't believe in 'spoilers'. If something (other than a joke) really is 'spoiled' by knowing how it ends, then it wasn't worth watching/reading in the first place.
If the only thing that's interesting in a film is how it ends, then having it 'spoiled' is a good thing because it means you don't waste the two hours getting to that point.
All that makes stuff good is the stuff that can't be summed up in a synopsis.
November 12, 2009 | Reply
There seems to be a general consensus emerging that spoilers (at least on blogs) are real and there should at least be a consideration of other people's feelings on the subjects before revealing major parts of plots. Stuart differs, but I've never noticed him actually unleashing spoilers on his blog or on Twitter, so I'm not going to unsubscribe from him instantly: he's on borrowed time if he does though. ;-)
As for Twitter, well, I use Twitter every day, I use it for the news on this 'ere blog and I go to lots of news site. With the exception of Heroes (where I do go looking for spoilers) and with casting decisions (ie who's coming and going from shows), I actually very rarely get spoiled with plot revelations, so it seems that it is possible to remain unspoiled for at least a day or so after an episode of something airs and still use Twitter. Of course, not subscribing to anyone who lets out spoiling Tweets may have something to do with that.
So are we all generally happy with the spoilers policy here? Would you like greater spoiler warnings? Fewer spoilers being mentioned at all? (Obviously, anyone who doesn't care about being spoiled needn't answer)
November 12, 2009 | Reply
The thing about this blog (and indeed pretty much all blogs I visit) is that the posts are clear about what they are spoiling because they are about specific episodes. Which works fine. I don't read the Heroes posts and so am still unspoiled for Heroes. So yeah, I am happy with the spoiler policy here.
And I disagree with Toby's list! If someone has somehow escaped knowing how those films end, they need to be educated fast! Some pop-culture knowledge is compulsory.
November 12, 2009 | Reply
I think this site handles spoilers fine.
But I still think most people should experience key plot points as they're watching the movie or show (or reading the book or comic) instead of hearing about it from someone else or reading about it in an article or online.
I vowed to do my best to stay away from spoilers after I went to see a couple of much anticipated movies and I literally had heard about every key plot point before watching the film. I missed that sense of surprise and excitement I got from watching something like Empire Strikes Back or Star Trek II: The Warath of Khan for the first time. But then AFTER seeing them, I wanted to discuss the plot points with others -- so that's the time for spoiler talk.
It still confuses me why anyone would want to know every detail of a movie or show BEFORE SEEING IT. I know it's tempting, we want to see an anticipated film NOW. But isn't it much better to just go into a movie or television show and experience it fresh?
Sometimes, you can't escape spoilers. Heroes last week was a great example -- the clip "from next week's episode" gave away a major, major, major plot development, which totally annoyed me and my wife as we were watching it.
November 12, 2009 | Reply
I'd actually comment that you're really rather good at managing spoilers - you keep most stuff under the 'cut'/'jump' which helps, and even then are pretty vague about details of plot revelations (where feasible). So a personal bravo.
Otherwise, I feel ambivalent: I'd love to watch everything (film and TV) with fresh eyes, as I did when I was young. But I recognise that short of sticking my head in a bucket, never going online, hardly turning the TV on, never reading newspapers, film or TV magazines... well, it isn't possible.
I try, on a limited level and it's nearly driven me insane. I had hysterical delight when I watched the penultimate S2 of Doctor Who, but I only just about avoided what was happening at the end of S3 (I only squint-saw the casting for the final two eps and didn't process any link to 'Utopia'). I virtually cut myself off when the penultimate episode of S4 aired in the UK so I came to the finale as 'clear' as I could and I felt a wreck by the time I sat down to watch. Being in NZ last Christmas sort-of eased spoiler awareness, but I still had to duck online contact. And I've already lost my rag at DWM for blowing a returning character and despite best efforts to duck casting and filming rumours and confirmations I am sorry that I know more than I would have liked about who's around for the Tenth Doctor finales. Grr.
So my stance ultimately is this:
1) if possible avoid blaring plot events in headlines and top paragraphs (and pictures too please)
2) use vague terms where possible - 'casting rumours' will do, people can follow the links if they need to
3) spoiler tags where reasonable til at least a DVD release, but this can get woolly when there is such a time lag between screenings in different countries (this all connects with my long-standing issue about distribution: we'd at least all have the same avoidance time if there were global release dates)
It gets much harder in comment feeds and locations like Twitter, and I sometimes have had to delete a whole clutch of comments or wait a really long delay before logging on Twitter. But hey, I'm a rubbish user of such things anyway.
November 12, 2009 | Reply
End of episode trailers... Bane of my viewing. In fact, the art of trailers at all seems to be utterly screwy. Why give away that at the end of S4 of Doctor Who the daleks are coming back? It's just madness... but that's what the trailer did halfway through the series... the point about the S3 trailer they did half way through was that although you saw the gleaming smile and taunt of Saxon, at that point only pre-spoilered people would know who/what he was, unlike the Daleks which EVERYBODY recognises. I must admit I've started to skip watching trailers, adopting a 'fingers in ears, leave the room going 'la-la-la' approach' which makes me look like a mad person.
No one say anything please.