Yes, fine. But none of the people who are so keen to champion how we manage on this tightly moderated part of the web have addressed the question I posed yesterday. Do you think it's reasonable to expect everybody in the world, in all forms of public communication, to guard the entire content of Game of Thrones indefinitely? Is this a realistically achievable goal?
All you can control is yourself and your own actions. If everyone did that, then nobody would have to worry about being spoiled on a piece of entertainment media they just started or were planning to start. A simple spoiler warning I'm about to talk about GoT, or placing it in spoiler tags where available would do a lot. Same as discussing it in a group of people, you make sure everyone has seen what you're talking about before you go into spoiler territory. It's really not as hard as people are making it out to be.
All you can control is yourself and your own actions. If everyone did that, then nobody would have to worry about being spoiled on a piece of entertainment media they just started or were planning to start. A simple spoiler warning I'm about to talk about GoT, or placing it in spoiler tags where available would do a lot. Same as discussing it in a group of people, you make sure everyone has seen what you're talking about before you go into spoiler territory. It's really not as hard as people are making it out to be.
Right, so that's Game of Thrones handled. Indefinitely. But you know what's coming next. This is every single potential reference to the important plot points of every single fictional narrative, in every medium, forever. We seem to be going down that route, and there are still people who clearly don't think that's at all onerous. No discussion of the most haunting themes of Mary Shelley's most famous work, no casual reference to the defining trait of Mr Hyde, no allusions to the fate of Grigor Samsa, no talk of the central betrayal that characterizes Winston Smith's relationships, no talk of Tralfamadore or the peculiar life of Leonard Zeelig, in fact no literary allusions whatever lest the reader of the article or essay has not yet caught up with the content you're referring to.
I wonder how posters here imagine this could ever work.
By asking; 'Have you read [such and such]? No? Well you should give it a read, I recommend it.'
No one's comment about pretty much anything is going to be novel enough that it warrants ruining something for somebody else. You're just stroking your own ego to think otherwise.
By asking; 'Have you read [such and such]? No? Well you should give it a read, I recommend it.'
No one's comment about pretty much anything is going to be novel enough that it warrants ruining something for somebody else. You're just stroking your own ego to think otherwise.
So much for literary criticism. If only all those essayists had realised they had nothing to say except "I think you should read some books which I list below. As I cannot know whether or not everybody reading my words has caught up on all of them, I have indefinitely postponed my article on references to certain concepts which are found in some of the works listed below, in the films of the Watchovskys."
At the risk of giving offence to those who have not yet read the works of Joseph Heller, I feel compelled to remark that that's some catch, that catch-22.
So much for literary criticism. If only all those essayists had realised they had nothing to say except "I think you should read some books which I list below. As I cannot know whether or not everybody reading my words has caught up on all of them, I have indefinitely postponed my article on references to certain concepts which are found in some of the works listed below, in the films of the Watchovskys."
At the risk of giving offence to those who have not yet read the works of Joseph Heller, I feel compelled to remark that that's some catch, that catch-22.
Or they could state up front they will be spoiling things about x-book and y-movie in their article. Seems simple enough to me. Give people a choice if they want to read on and be spoiled or not. There's a youtube channel I watch about games that does something similar, beware of spoilers for [these games] vs just shitting out spoilers without any concept that maybe a viewer hasn't completed said game. What a concept!
Do you have any books of literary analysis that are preceded by spoiler warnings enumerating the works discussed or referenced? Or maybe it's time to admit that the literary world is largely unaware of your ambitions for such widespread self-censorship.
Do you have any books of literary analysis that are preceded by spoiler warnings enumerating the works discussed or referenced? Or maybe it's time to admit that the literary world is largely unaware of your ambitions for such widespread self-censorship.
I'm saying they should start; or is that too wild a concept that things could change? Again I'll repeat that everyone can control what they do; and if everyone took this into consideration nobody would have to worry about being spoiled on something. That's about all I have to say on the matter if you haven't grasped it by now.
It says a lot about people that there's some need to "debate" this. Proper spoiler etiquette is just don't be an asshole. Don't use spoilers in threads irrelevant to the spoiler in question, even if it's engrained into popculture like the Star Wars one, or The Sixth Sense, or whatever. You don't talk about Game of Thrones if the thread is about Lord of the Rings, you don't talk about Star Wars if it's about the new One Plus 7 Pro. It's common sense, really.
If you want to talk about the ending to Endgame, you open a thread called "Regarding the ending to Avengers: Endgame" instead of blatantly put spoilers in the title, and that's that. Those who've seen the movie and want to weigh in their experiences can do so, those who haven't seen it yet won't click the thread. Honestly it's that simple.
Yes, it's ridiculously ambitious and, as another poster has suggested, seems only intended to serve to maintain a state of cultural illiteracy. It's almost dadaist in its absurdity. Ubu himself could not dream up a more futile and onerous scheme. Oops, there I go ruining your first chance to experience the works of Alfred Jarry. He's only been dead 112 years.
For current things sure. For stuff that's established culture lexicon nope. Again, that's holding those that experienced it hostage. We have to be the ones to tiptoe the subject. Just having a discussion is not being a dick. Also study after study has shown knowing the spoiler rarely runs the experience for the viewer. Not going out of my way to spoil current events, but I am not holding back on a discussion on older material just because someone still hasn't absorbed it or wasn't alive when it was current.
No reason every discussion forum has to look like a redacted Mueller report.
Real simple, if you haven't experienced it, and don't want the poss6of something being spoiled, don't enter discussions on it.
Yes, fine. But none of the people who are so keen to champion how we manage on this tightly moderated part of the web have addressed the question I posed yesterday. Do you think it's reasonable to expect everybody in the world, in all forms of public communication, to guard the entire content of Game of Thrones indefinitely? Is this a realistically achievable goal?
No. Nor should it be expected. Like I said yesterday, this is a recent trend. We never had outrage when shit was "spoiled" at school or even at work before. It just motivated to go see or read it to be apart of it. Experience or stay out of the discussion.
Fun fact, when LOST first aired, it would air here a week after the states.
That week it aired I would read on lostpedia everything that happened in that episode before I saw it on TV.
Reading spoilers made me even MORE excited for the episode to air ASAP here and enhanced my viewing experience.
It was (and still is) the case that many films release late where I am. So I was usually familiar with the broad strokes of a film before actually being able to see it.
Usually knowing that stuff never impeded my enjoyment. If anything it made knowing what to spend my money on easier.
That isn't to say there aren't movies that benefit from the audience going in cold, but in reality it doesn't matter for 95% of films.
Which brings us back to my question in my earliest post from today: is it reasonable to expect us to tiptoe around significant events in popular culture? At what point is it okay to mention the term "infinity gauntlet" in public? When will it be okay to use the term "snap" in a discussion to represent a sudden forcible destructive act?
"Okay, new acquaintance I'm trying to make smalltalk with, have you watched Infinity War? I only ask because I intended to make a pop culture reference to a well known phenomenon in the Avengers films (no guessing which one I'm referring to!) in which this pop culture term might give you a clue to something that might potentially happen in this series of films."
I don't necessarily think tiptoeing is "necessary", just courtesy, with the understanding that, well, shit happens. Codifying a "when" isn't really realistic, and I don't think worth it.
And I think that "when" is subjective too, as it depends on the person hearing or reading, since the window of time matters to them, not the speaker. We do a pretty good job on the forum here with reasonable expectations around spoilers from a moderating standpoint (I think), so letting those chips fall where they may with the understanding that if it needs to change, or if trolls need to be banned, then it'll happen.
Can't really account for trolls either, and they're the extremes of both sides of this debate, IMO.
the most danger I'm ever in is in threads about spoilers like this one, I manage to avoid them, it's a non-issue for me irl because I talk to my friends about what we're doing that week, what we're planning, how we're doing. If someone is going to randomly bring up a show it's a simple question away.... "have you seen x?"
to the people posting spoilers ITT for things they consider long past due just to make examples - that's the kind of thing that's easy to avoid doing if you weren't so edgy
I'm with Scullibundo, they bring up The Sopranos, I'd love to get into that some time and it certainly won't be the same if I know how the show ends / what key plot points there are - but according to some I'd have no right to be disappointed if that was revealed to me
I'm with Scullibundo, they bring up The Sopranos, I'd love to get into that some time and it certainly won't be the same if I know how the show ends / what key plot points there are - but according to some I'd have no right to be disappointed if that was revealed to me
The Sopranos ended twelve years ago so I guess it's a pretty good test for the question of whether the spoiler grace period should or should not eventually expire. I'm not surprised to see some arguing that you can't freely discuss the events of the series finale. But I'm really old so let's try some earlier stuff.
Gone with the Wind, released 1939. There are two very popular and nevertheless slightly spoilery quotes from that, one from Rett and the other from Scarlet. Arguably the historical background is not a spoiler, because the Atlanta fire and other major events of the American Civil War really happened. But there is a foreground narrative that reflects the great upheavals of the southern states. Can that film not be freely discussed on its 80th anniversary?
The Day the Earth Stood Still, a 1951 film that is still much beloved by SF lovers of my generation. In fact some of us ancient geezers are fond of quoting a three word phrase in an alien language that plays a key role in the plot. By itself I suppose it's meaningless, but the context in which we use it gives away something about the main plot of the film. So, is it ixnay on made up phrase?
If you've seen the 1998 film GalaxyQuest, you may be aware that
it's an affectionate pastiche of old Star Trek, its fan culture and the feelings of the actors who became indelibly associated with the show.
So can I openly discuss this in detail, or should I make sure to ask if everybody has seen it or knows what it's about? Some people have a life, and may not have picked up the subtle clues in the published trailers and posters promoting the film.
Suppose I do just decide to recommend the film, without further comment, should I nevertheless make polite inquiries as to their knowledge of popular SF culture?
Like John Scalzi's superb novel Redshirts, the film refers to various common tropes of old Star Trek that perhaps my friend might prefer to experience at first hand by watching the series.
There's also a slight quandary here. Won't my polite inquiries, by their direction, betray clues about the original subject matter? How can I in good faith recommend that my friend watch a film if that film will in turn spoil other media?
You're in a maze of twisty passages, all different.
The Sopranos ended twelve years ago so I guess it's a pretty good test for the question of whether the spoiler grace period should or should not eventually expire. I'm not surprised to see some arguing that you can't freely discuss the events of the series finale. But I'm really old so let's try some earlier stuff.
Gone with the Wind, released 1939. There are two very popular and nevertheless slightly spoilery quotes from that, one from Rett and the other from Scarlet. Arguably the historical background is not a spoiler, because the Atlanta fire and other major events of the American Civil War really happened. But there is a foreground narrative that reflects the great upheavals of the southern states. Can that film not be freely discussed on its 80th anniversary?
The Day the Earth Stood Still, a 1951 film that is still much beloved by SF lovers of my generation. In fact some of us ancient geezers are fond of quoting a three word phrase in an alien language that plays a key role in the plot. By itself I suppose it's meaningless, but the context in which we use it gives away something about the main plot of the film. So, is it ixnay on made up phrase?
If you've seen the 1998 film GalaxyQuest, you may be aware that
it's an affectionate pastiche of old Star Trek, its fan culture and the feelings of the actors who became indelibly associated with the show.
So can I openly discuss this in detail, or should I make sure to ask if everybody has seen it or knows what it's about? Some people have a life, and may not have picked up the subtle clues in the published trailers and posters promoting the film.
Suppose I do just decide to recommend the film, without further comment, should I nevertheless make polite inquiries as to their knowledge of popular SF culture?
Like John Scalzi's superb novel Redshirts, the film refers to various common tropes of old Star Trek that perhaps my friend might prefer to experience at first hand by watching the series.
There's also a slight quandary here. Won't my polite inquiries, by their direction, betray clues about the original subject matter? How can I in good faith recommend that my friend watch a film if that film will in turn spoil other media?
You're in a maze of twisty passages, all different.
I think it depends on where one is and just to use common sense, for myself too, I'm not going to wander into a thread about Gone With the Wind (which I haven't seen) and expect to see spoiler tags.
Where you've described a key moment or trope becoming part of the genre, making it's way into other films, then that's how it goes so I don't see an issue there.
It also matters more for certain films than others, if I was recommending someone see The Third Man I won't go past the setup even though our reveal is on the DVD cover, I wouldn't tell the ending to Chinatown, the mystery is a big part of those plots. I also don't think that would be hard to avoid as the prospective viewer ... no one has ever wanted to talk to me about the original The Day The Earth Stood Still... and I love Galaxy Quest.
I think if one appreciates that for some movies and books, the enjoyment of the first viewing or reading would be diminished if you knew certain things before watching / reading, then this should be a non-issue since most people are decent and can use their noggin - but we're online, I only really come up against this spoiler talk here.
It's not, but he's talking about IRL conversation and avoiding cultural references.
Before I caught up on seasons 5-6-7 (I stopped watching at 4 and just caught up this year), I've had some plot elements of Game of Thrones spoiled by watching The Daily Show because they made jokes about
Melisandre's real appearance and Jon's resurrection
Very recently, they made jokes about the latest episodes of this season too. I think it was a bit dickish so soon after it aired, but what are you gonna do.
Yeah, my point is that if we imposed an indefinite moratorium on plot points in popular culture it would impoverish our shared cultural language. No references to Jekyll and Hyde personalities, no golden goose, no allusions to magic beans, no underpants gnomes, no references to the death and subsequent revival of Sherlock Holmes.
If we had to ask everybody which items of pop culture narrative they've read or viewed before every off-the-cuff remark, not only would it serve little or no useful purpose, it would make everyday discussion extraordinarily difficult. There has to be a sensible accommodation between the wish for a "blind" new experience of every pop culture item and the essential function for which we like to share these items in the first place. We're not passive consumers of pop culture, we need to interact with it and discuss it and use it as a tool to discuss other things that would otherwise be less accessible.
I avoid talking loudly about Fight Club unless I'm with a group of people I know have seen it. So yeah, limts on spoilers are a bit pointless. Just be respectful of others.
I avoid talking loudly about Fight Club unless I'm with a group of people I know have seen it. So yeah, limts on spoilers are a bit pointless. Just be respectful of others.
What do you think Chuck Palahniuk would think about that? Surely in writing his novel he wanted to disseminate ideas, not to artificially suppress their discussion.
What do you think Chuck Palahniuk would think about that? Surely in writing his novel he wanted to disseminate ideas, not to artificially suppress their discussion.
Ideas exist independently of works that portray them. A novel like Fight Club, and the associated film, are part of a larger dialogue about social roles. They cry out for discussion. Otherwise you're just treating them like the dead items of a passive culture. This is especially ironic in view of the themes.
You've never been in a group situation (like say, a party) where you might have a conversation with two people about the latest episode of whatever and someone else nearby/in the crowd *hasn't* and gets all butthurt about spoilers? I feel like, outside of hyperbolic internet spoilerphobia, this is the most common interaction I have around the subject - someone in earshot of "spoilers" getting mad because others are having a conversation.
Any reasonable person isn't going to be going out of their way to spoil something for others, shouting random spoilers or just launching into context-free "OMG I can't believe X killed Y last night on GOT!" without prior conversation establishing that topic.
If one is spoiler sensitive to that level, and this I very much believe is a choice you make...then it's on you to decide that you can't handle being part of certain conversations or whatever. It is not on the world around you to conform to this bizarre standard so you can, what, preserve some fun in your casual entertainment?
Also, if we were to truly embrace "no expiration date" on any plot element (and let's not even get into the people who define spoilers even more loosely), I can't even count how many other books, TV shows, movies, and games would have to drastically change their content, as we live in a time that is more reference, nostalgia, etc.-heavy than, I'd argue, anytime in history.
People just need to stop defining their lives by the media they consume. A movie was spoiled, so what? It ain't the end of the world. I think if you're getting all twisted over spoilers then you have deeper issues you gotta work on. Hate to say it but, you need to get a life.
Flip side of this is true. People need to stop spreading spoilers. Why dies someone need to blurt out what happened in a piece of media before a large section of the population has experienced it for themselves? People have deep issues if that cannot be considerate of others by purpose ruining experiences for other. Spoiling people need to be taught social norms or see a therapist. Craving negative feedback or inflicting discomfort to others is not healthy.
Outside of articles and forums what is the suggestion? Are people supposed to ask the room if they are allowed to talk a friend about something first? Are people now required to walk away somewhere where nobody is at because someone might get upset?
Shit, we may as well not even talk as something is always going to bother someone if this is the expectation we hold entertainment discussion to.
Well, in my family we'll joke about Star Wars plot points all the time. I don't even think my kids have both watched the original trilogy, though one of them did watch at least the original film because a certain Buffy the Vampire Slayer character is a Star Wars fan in the show and the comics. This isn't in carefully delineated discussions but just a general cultural reference point that might randomly materialise in any discussion. It's just one of those film series you can assume everybody knows about though few in my children's generation have seen it. Like Great Expectations or A Tale of Two Cities. Nobody is in any doubt about the context of Sydney Carton's final speech in the latter novel. Ronald Colman's off-camera delivery of those lines in the 1935 adaptation has become a cultural phenomenon in itself.
This is how conversation works. I would find it rather odd if a guest complained that they haven't watched some show or film. There's nothing stopping them. I only encounter this extreme spoiler-avoidant behaviour online.
Flip side of this is true. People need to stop spreading spoilers. Why dies someone need to blurt out what happened in a piece of media before a large section of the population has experienced it for themselves? People have deep issues if that cannot be considerate of others by purpose ruining experiences for other. Spoiling people need to be taught social norms or see a therapist. Craving negative feedback or inflicting discomfort to others is not healthy.
You've really got this the wrong way around. To avoid discussing fictional narrative would, if ever widely achieved, turn our cultural life into a fossil. The works live through us.
This is how conversation works. I would find it rather odd if a guest complained that they haven't watched some show or film. There's nothing stopping them.
This is really weird that you would find it odd that someone would say they wouldn't want to be spoiled. Like how can you just lack an understanding as to why someone would feel this way? Also you know what's stopping them? It's something called time and most of us lack it so trying to fit everything possible the second it comes out is hard for most people to do and people have to put things off as a result. What's weird is this expectation of someone having to be on top of media the second it comes out.
The thing stopping them is time.
I only encounter this extreme spoiler-avoidant behaviour online.
Maybe it's because people have no consideration online and people push back as a result? Have you not been paying attention to the spoiler ridden topic titles in this very forum even currently that continues to happen despite people agreeing it shouldn't happen and is against the rules here? Yet it constantly happens still. Game of Thrones and other threads have continued to do it because people simply can't be considerate and put shit where it should go. Yet you wonder why there's a push back online?
Odd, I mean, in the sense that it's just not how conversation works in my family and milieu. You'll note I avoided writing Sydney Carton's very famous speech here, but in real life I'd refer to it casually as part of a remark on an unrelated topic. Even people who haven't read the novel or seen a film adaptation know what it's about, and if they don't know they ask.
A Tale of Two Cities was published in 1859, Star Wars and its sequels are also decades old. You don't need to have read or watched either of these items of pop culture to be conversant with their shape and accustomed to casual references to them.
And how on earth can you read Chaucer or Shakespeare? They're clogged full of spoilers for other works. Even the subtitle of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a mild spoiler for the tale of Prometheus.
Have you not been paying attention to the spoiler ridden topic titles in this very forum even currently that continues to happen despite people agreeing it shouldn't happen and is against the rules here? Yet it constantly happens still.
Odd, I mean, in the sense that it's just not how conversation works in my family and milieu. You'll note I avoided writing Sydney Carton's very famous speech here, but in real life I'd refer to it casually as part of a remark on an unrelated topic. Even people who haven't read the novel or seen a film adaptation know what it's about, and if they don't know they ask.
This just shows you lack empathy and consideration though since you can't fathom it outside of your own small circle.
A Tale of Two Cities was published in 1859, Star Wars and its sequels are also decades old. You don't need to have read or watched either of these items of pop culture to be conversant with their shape and accustomed to casual references to them.
And how on earth can you read Chaucer or Shakespeare? They're clogged full of spoilers for other works. Even the subtitle of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a mild spoiler for the tale of Prometheus.
And yet the thread titles keep popping up. Just because they get enforced doesn't change the fact that they exist for a period of time and continue to get created because people simply cannot behave and follow the rules themselves without moderation and someone stepping in to fix it. You will continue to get people pushing back as long as people continue to be inconsiderate. Moderators stepping in to fix it doesn't fix the original problem to begin with.
That's' just you being selfish about your situation and not being empathetic and considerate of others though. You following the rules here and not spoiling is a result of you knowing that it could directly impact you. That's selfish and the opposite of considerate.
That's not the message I intended by my references to classics and films from before my adult children were born.
Then what are you trying to justify by putting out examples of literally works that are hundreds of years old then? Because clearly if there is a difference between a Shakespeare work and Game of Thrones because of their age then there is clearly a reasonable expectation of time and the type of content that people are talking about being spoiled. If you're using those as proving we can't cover everything therefore it should be fair game, then you're using that as justification to not worry about spoilers in general because you can't cover everything. So if you're saying what I was saying is true, then you're agreeing there is a reasonable expectation of not spoiling and time is most certainly a factor into that consideration.
I avoid talking loudly about Fight Club unless I'm with a group of people I know have seen it. So yeah, limts on spoilers are a bit pointless. Just be respectful of others.
I had been spoiled the Fight Club twist long before I saw the movie, simply because the twist is part of the popculture nowadays and thus it was referenced a couple of times in various conversations of message boards that I read. Would I enjoy being surprised by the twist in the movie? Yeah, sure. Did knowing the twist ruined the movie for me, though? No, because the movie is much more than just a plot twist, and even though I knew that X is Y, I didn't know how will it be executed, how will the movie pull the reveal, and how will it affect the plot.
Same with the "Harry Potter 6" spoiler, the "The Force Awakens" spoiler and many, many more (I'm usually very late to the party when it comes to movies, books and games ;))
And there's a difference between intentionally spoiling something because you're an asshole, and simply referencing something that's been widely known by the public for X years because it's a part of popculture or an important example of storytelling / moviemaking / whatever. Given that Internet is a huge, world-wide community board, actively trying to avoid putting spoiler in those discussions, just because someone might not have seen / played / read / heard something, would be really limiting.
There was a thread on ResetEra recently about putting spoiler tags regarding FF7, because there will be people who will experience the story for the first time with FF7 Remake. But that one spoilery event - one character's death - is so ingrained in video game culture and has been memed to the death that trying to hide it now would be simply stupid; the info is already out, has been there for years in the form of millions of posts, comics, memes, videos etc. that even people who haven't played any Final Fantasy game ever (like me) are familiar with the scene.
That's' just you being selfish about your situation and not being empathetic and considerate of others though. You following the rules here and not spoiling is a result of you knowing that it could directly impact you. That's selfish and the opposite of considerate.
Obviously nobody would be told off for quoting a famous line from an 1859 Dickens novel here. That's not what our spoiler policy is about. I'm simply taking a lead from Sydney Carton's example of charity, which unfortunately means I cannot illustrate my intentions fully by reference to his short final speech. The irony is beautiful.
Then what are you trying to justify by putting out examples of literally works that are hundreds of years old then? Because clearly if there is a difference between a Shakespeare work and Game of Thrones because of their age then there is clearly a reasonable expectation of time and the type of content that people are talking about being spoiled.
Then I see that you and I are at least on the same side of the argument when we agree that spoilers don't apply indefinitely. We're simply in possible disagreement about how long the embargo should apply in everyday discussion.
I did quietly discuss in detail the plot of Endgame on a train the other day. Should I have taken a show of hands first in case anybody was eavesdropping?
Obviously nobody would be told off for quoting a famous line from an 1859 Dickens novel here. That's not what our spoiler policy is about. I'm simply taking a lead from Sydney Carton's example of charity, which unfortunately means I cannot illustrate my intentions fully by reference to his short final speech. The irony is beautiful.
Then I see that you and I are at least on the same side of the argument when we agree that spoilers don't apply indefinitely. We're simply in possible disagreement about how long the embargo should apply in everyday discussion.
I did quietly discuss in detail the plot of Endgame on a train the other day. Should I have taken a show of hands first in case anybody was eavesdropping?
Since people have different feelings on the time frame, the simple thing to do then is just be considerate. You've put way more effort into this compared to the fraction of the amount of effort needed to be considerate.
The real question is, if you were quietly starting to discuss Endgame, and the person leaned over and said they were about to go see it tonight, would you mind not spoiling it for me? Would you be considerate and stop or just continue on with your discussion?
The real question is, if you were quietly starting to discuss Endgame, and the person leaned over and said they were about to go see it tonight, would you mind not spoiling it for me? Would you be considerate and stop or just continue on with your discussion?
Since people have different feelings on the time frame, the simple thing to do then is just be considerate. You've put way more effort into this compared to the fraction of the amount of effort needed to be considerate.
The real question is, if you were quietly starting to discuss Endgame, and the person leaned over and said they were about to go see it tonight, would you mind not spoiling it for me? Would you be considerate and stop or just continue on with your discussion?
I mean if you're not acquainted with that person you can also tell them that they can just go away so they don't hear it. Unless you're having a conversation in a 3x3 room or something.
I mean if you're not acquainted with that person you can also tell them that they can just go away so they don't hear it. Unless you're having a conversation in a 3x3 room or something.
It was a train, so people nearby didn't really have the option of moving elsewhere. One of my kids who hasn't yet seen the film wanted to ask me about some plot elements so we passed the time enjoyably by discussing the film.
On the flip side, there's the expectation that you've seen, or heard of it, and had it recommended because it was a notable pop culture moment, yet still refused to watch it.
I think some people will respect how good a twist is and not spoil it for even decades later, but at some point it becomes as part of the culture as "Luke, i am your father" or Kaiser Soze. If you get hurt then i really find it hard to care. On that note everybody should watch Frailty starring the late great Bill Paxton and also Matthew macconaughey.
the most danger I'm ever in is in threads about spoilers like this one, I manage to avoid them, it's a non-issue for me irl because I talk to my friends about what we're doing that week, what we're planning, how we're doing. If someone is going to randomly bring up a show it's a simple question away.... "have you seen x?"
to the people posting spoilers ITT for things they consider long past due just to make examples - that's the kind of thing that's easy to avoid doing if you weren't so edgy
I'm with Scullibundo, they bring up The Sopranos, I'd love to get into that some time and it certainly won't be the same if I know how the show ends / what key plot points there are - but according to some I'd have no right to be disappointed if that was revealed to me
The question is, would you be upset if someone was discussing the cultural event that spawned off of the ending of the Sopranos? Or if someone simply made a reference about the ending?
Let's say that a group of people are having a conversation around the media surrounding organized crime; Scarface, The Godfather, The Sopranos. Should my conversation be steered away from the impact that those three works had, simply because someone wants to be involved in the conversation but doesn't want to be spoiled on the ending of The Sopranos? My discussion is intimately tied into The Sopranos and I shouldn't have to put a halt to it because someone wants to discuss media without engaging with it first.
I agree that being a total dick about more modern things is unnecessary, like spoiling the recent GoT episode for the sake of it, but it's anti-intellectual (in a way) to demand I not talk about the impact of media simply because someone doesn't want to be spoiled by the ending of something.
It was a train, so people nearby didn't really have the option of moving elsewhere. One of my kids who hasn't yet seen the film wanted to ask me about some plot elements so we passed the time enjoyably by discussing the film.
I mean that's fair. It's just irritating that the poster you're talking to seems to want the world to accommodate them and painting others who just want to talk about something as "inconsiderate".
Imagine someone random coming up to you and telling you to stop talking about a movie they haven't seen. Who the hell is that person?
It does depend on context. Because the film is still in its first run I could well understand a person feeling compelled to politely ask me not to discuss it in their presence. It would be an unusual request, in my experience, but not unreasonable in certain circumstances. Lifts, cars, and public transport may create a situation where even the quietest discussion can be overheard without effort.
This is the most millennial argument here. Memes are still a relatively recent thing. It is not a "what we always do as a society" thing. It is a generational thing.
It sounds like you are complaining about the ease of information flow more than anything else.
This is the most millennial argument here. Memes are still a relatively recent thing. It is not a "what we always do as a society" thing. It is a generational thing.
It sounds like you are complaining about the ease of information flow more than anything else.
I'd view the term 'meme' here in the broader dawkinsian sense of a transmissible idea. In that context, a meme is simply a cultural element derived from some source. The lone gunman who saves the day and rides off into the sunset was a well established meme, cropping up in discussion as a simile long before the word 'meme' was coined. Similar memes include black hats, white hats, dying with one's boots on, the young gun, and so on. It's more than 50 years since the age of the classic Western, but the memes are still with us.
The question is, would you be upset if someone was discussing the cultural event that spawned off of the ending of the Sopranos? Or if someone simply made a reference about the ending?
Let's say that a group of people are having a conversation around the media surrounding organized crime; Scarface, The Godfather, The Sopranos. Should my conversation be steered away from the impact that those three works had, simply because someone wants to be involved in the conversation but doesn't want to be spoiled on the ending of The Sopranos? My discussion is intimately tied into The Sopranos and I shouldn't have to put a halt to it because someone wants to discuss media without engaging with it first.
I agree that being a total dick about more modern things is unnecessary, like spoiling the recent GoT episode for the sake of it, but it's anti-intellectual (in a way) to demand I not talk about the impact of media simply because someone doesn't want to be spoiled by the ending of something.
I said disappointed, I wouldn't be upset with say you for inadvertently spoiling an old show in the scenario you gave, I also think that in your scenario - say the shoe was on the other foot, I'd likely ask if you'd seen it mid-conversation and probably ask if you cared if I continued - I've actually done that
last night I was some friends and we somehow got onto movies set in Boston, the accent and The Departed, at the end of that film Matt Damon gets killed by Mark Walbherg's character, that's such a key moment and I remember seeing that in the cinema with my mouth open - what a great ending! Leading up to that it was easy for me to establish we'd all seen it - and I wouldn't have brought up that detail otherwise, unless no one cared but I know these friends of mine would and if the scenario you described were to happen then we'd likely know each other and you'd know that about me too, making it all the more unlikely that The Sporanos would be spoiled for me
it's no skin off my nose but also I want to know how much the other person understands about whatever the concept is. It would also be up to me, if you start talking about a show I don't want to know anything about it would be quite easy for me to interject.
