What's a Spoiler Now?

I tend to agree; if it hasn't aired yet, I don't want to know. But if it has, I know that its on me to avoid spoilers.

What I have never understood are the people who actively seek spoilers to shows that haven't aired yet. Can someone out there explain to me the appeal of ruining the first-time viewing experience?

As far as spoilers go, I think TV is a different animal than film. In a movie, you have 2, maaaaybe 3 hours to tell an engaging story with a shocking twist at the end. Since I obviously haven't seen every TV show ever I can't know this for sure, but I get the sense that seralized TV dramas with overarching mysteries only blossomed BECAUSE of the rewatch/in-one-sitting capabilites that DVD and later on tivo granted. Dramas until the mid-90s were mostly formulaic, stand-alone episodes, maybe with subplots carried through seasons or arcs, but nothing particularly shocking that totally chances the way you think about the show.
-
All this is to say that I think your comparison to Citizen Kane is a bit unfair. That being said, review/column/blog readers should usually know better & not whine as much.

PS - Soap operas don't count in the "serialized mystery drama" genre. Neither does whether or not Ross & Rachel end up together.

My rule of thumb: Keep spoilers out of the line-of-sight for at least 12-24 hours after it has first aired in the country of origin. Now that most blogs have the capability to split posts, I prefer the "behind the jump" technique: "click here to read the rest of this post", with only vague info on the main page. I actually don't mind spoilers in most situations, but I'm really annoyed when blogs give away key info in the top summary that shows up in Google Reader. I was visiting a friend in Seattle last June when Top Chef's finale aired (I live on the east coast), and I was VERY upset to refresh GReader at 8:30PST and see a certain blog's headline, "Stephanie wins Top Chef!" -- over an hour before the episode began to air.

I'm one who will be catching up with BSG on DVD ... I'm still somewhere early in season two. So just by seeing headlines and reading bits in articles that aren't even exclusively about the show, I've been "spoiled." Except ... no. What, the world is supposed to stay silent because I chose not to watch in real time, or can't? For some series I have to wait until they come to Canada or are released on DVD, but I still accept that since I read a lot of TV-related stuff, I'm probably going to hear about major developments, like Omar's death on The Wire. It does diminish the experience a bit – I partly blame the fact that I already knew who'd died, etc, for bailing on Lost when starting to watch on DVD. But who knows – maybe it just didn't engage me enough anyway.

If the spoilers-that-aren't-spoilers-to-everyone-else thing bothered me enough, I would try harder to live in a TV news cocoon and not peruse TV-related blogs and new sites. It's so easy for seemingly innocuous casting news to reveal something I'd rather not know in a perfect world. But I think the choice to avoid or not is on me, not the Internet. The only spoilers that truly bother me are talk about show-changers that haven't yet aired and that are revealed with no warning.

IMHO, the only responsibility that a critic has in terms of "spoiling" someone's experience is to give a "spoiler alert" at the beginning of an article -- then be as honest and forthright about the show as possible.

The problem that Justin is confronting is that he isn't writing as a critic of BSG here, but as a fan -- and therein lies the problem.

Overall, one seldom sees critiques of the acting, editing, or direction of various series "discussion groups" that are hosted here, the discussion is pretty much centered on the narrative arc, and how (in)effective it is. That is separate and distinct from "criticism", and the rules for the host of a discussion group should be that no discussion at all takes place until the episode airs, at which point anything goes.

I think your strategy is totally fair. I do think spoilers can be overrated. Frankly sometimes watching shows in order is overrated too when it's a quality show. You can go back and watch a missed season or something later, and when it's well done you'll get lovely little revelations along the lines of "Ah, when I was watching season 2 I sensed tension between those two, now that I'm catching up on season 1 I understand why!" etc.

@avodden

I am someone who often goes on Dark UFO's Spoiler TV site for information on LOST. But the "spoilers" I look for don't have to do with the plot. They usually have to do with casting news and looking for the latest trailer. I really go on there to get a little taste to hold me over during the long hiatus. Plus, once I'm watching the show I forget the things I had found out. When full episode summaries are released I never look at them. And I agree, I don't understand why people would do that (the Season 3 finale is the best example).

When I used to go on TVguide.com the producer of Gilmore Girls used to give all of the plot points away to the fans. And that's what the fans wanted. I never understood why they wanted to know everything.

I think your release date (or preferably, the morning after) rule is eminently reasonable; if it has come out and people haven't bothered to get around to it then they have no grounds to complain.

Of course, if something is exceedingly great, then vague mentions ahead of time (Lost Season 5 Episode 1 is awesome - Episode 2 not so much, as every other columnist is saying) are not only allowed but appreciated.

I think not giving away big details in headlines or images for at elast 24 hours is appropriate. And as cheesy as it sounds, inserting the phrase "Spoiler Alert" is kind but not necessary.

In fact, can I go back to add "Spoiler Alert!" - even as the punchline to a joke - to the list of phrases banned for 2009?

Now the tougher question for me is how long to honor a "no-talk-zone" in the office. I have kids and time-shift a lot, usually no more than 24 hours for "big event TV". But does that mean I get to dictate office chatter or should I just get a pair of headphones? I vote for dictating office chatter.

I agree - if you aren't that committed to the show that you didn't watch it live (or slightly DVR delayed) then being "spoiled" by something written after the airing is on you. You know its going to be out there, stay away from the blogs!

My "concern" (if you can call it that - this is a light-hearted reaction) is that the PTB at BSG sent out a screener that deleted part of the content of the show. WTH is that?! If you're that concerned, don't send out the screener. Otherwise, let the critics do their job! That's redonkulous.

(I apologize if "screener" isn't the right word. I stand by redonkulous.)

I do time-shift a lot of my viewing and generally don't get spoiled because I avoid posts about stuff I'm planning on watching in a day or two. But I've been spoiled while waiting for the DVD set for channels I don't subscribe to, or waiting for the local airing of a non-US show. And generally it's my own darned fault for failing to exercise self-control in my clicking.

Avvoden's wonderings about what kind of person actually looks for spoilers is probably one of degree. As chriskw said, people do go looking for non-"what happens next?" info on unaired shows. Promo clips and casting PR don't do anything for me, but I do love to read and join in "Lost" speculations. That said, it's dangerous. I wouldn't DARE if the producers didn't do such a good job protecting me from real spoilerage. And there are certain sites that obviously one just avoids.

I agree that a probationary period just won't work. For something that I *did* watch last night, I want to read about it today. And if you're going to routinely delay one day, why not two? Why not a week? Why not till the season's over? There's no bright line.

"After the jump" is by far the best method. I'm alerted that there's something there (which on other sites that actually use tags, might prompt me to make a note of the tag so I can find it later) but doesn't give anything away -- assuming the poster is non-spoilery in their post title and their still photo selection too.

I probably should have clarified what I meant by "spoiler." I also seek out cast information, show news, that sort of thing. I also look for trailers for season premieres (oddly, I avoid in-season promos like the plague, it may not make sense, but it works for me.)

My main point had to do with people who actively seek to ruin themselves on plot points. The first comment on Mo Ryan's "spoiler-free is the way to be" BSG post was a fairly lengthy, by comment standards, screed on the temerity of Ryan to suggest that critics refrain from posting spoilers. It's just not a mindset I understand.

I think James and Alan Sepinwall do a great job about making sure anything about the episode appears "after the jump." Sepinwall has been posting FNL episode summaries, yet this non DirecTV viewer is blissfully unaware on the latest goings-on in Dillon

I think the "Let the Buyer beware" apply to this subject.

OMG, Omar dies on The Wire? Thanks a LOT, Dianne!

Just kidding. For one thing, searching the Internet for info. on a show you're not up-to-date on is just asking for trouble. For another, I don't find spoilers all that spoil-y, for the most part. For instance, I knew most of what would happen in Dexter season 2 before I watched it, and I still enjoyed the hell out of it. And no, I'm not one of those people who flip to the back of the book to find out the ending before I finish.

And for the record, if the entire experience of a book is encompassed in the ending (the "twist" or "reveal"), then it's a pretty crappy book. I think the same goes for TV, and movies.

Otherwise, why would we ever read/watch things more than once?

I don't have a problem with spoilers. I watch a lot of shows online, rather than as they air, which means that there is usually discussion about what I've missed, and I'll read it anyway. Actually, if I miss a show, I usually go straight and read the reviews and recaps, which doesn't ruin the unseen show, just gives me something to look forward to. Occasionally I try to stay in the dark about particular cliffhangers, but its not that big of a deal.

That said, I don't even know what really constitutes a "spoiler". I don't consider casting info or anything like that a spoiler, that should be fair game. For example, (OFFICE SPOILER ALERT), I don't think that it is a spoiler to say that the actor who plays Ryan is leaving the show. That gives away that something will probably have to happen with his character, but it doesn't give away anything about how the show will handle his leaving or his absence. Its news, not a spoiler. A spoiler would be if someone posted "Ryan to Leave The Office in Hail of Gunfire" or "Ryan to Get Fired Again after Burning Down Dunder Mifflin", not "the actor who plays Ryan is leaving the show". But I know others disagree. Giving away main plot elements is really all that deserves any protection.

My bottom line opinion is that if people don't want info/discussion on TV shows, they shouldn't go look at a TV blog until they're ready, although I like the "spoilers after the jump" approach best, because it suits everyone and is a reasonable accomodation/compromise.

@murdoc829 Hee! Sorry. Not. Yeah, I don't search for info on shows I might want to watch in the future, but I read this and other tv blogs, TV Tattle, etc and it's impossible not to catch certain things. But whatever - it rarely spoils that much, as you say.

It seems to me the ONLY solution if you don't want to be spoiled at all is to avoid TV sites. Because what's the alternative, train everyone on the Internet to conform to your personal spoiler policy? Good luck. And as these comments attest, there's a wide range of opinion on what's a spoiler and how long people should wait to reveal them.

I don't like spoilers, and whether you personally believe in that or not, I think it should be respected. I also have some idealistic feelings about respecting the show-makers and watching what they have to present, instead of forming subconscious judgments about second-hand written descriptions that will unavoidably color the experience when you eventually watch the real thing...but those are my own personal feelings. I don't think anything you've done in terms of spoilers has been out-of-bounds, James. The only times I've get mad are when I visit EW's homepage or Kristen Dos Santos' site, and I see some big spoilery headline about Lost, which happens too frequently.

"Begging the question—for me anyway—of what that person was doing reading a review of that episode if they hadn't watched it."

I distinguish between "review" and "recap." A review, I hope, will tell me if the show in question is any good, without giving away so many details as to make watching the show unnecessary. An after-the-fact recap I expect to contain very specific information and analysis. And I religiously avoid reading *both* for shows I don't want to have spoiled. Which might be why, after a cursory viewing of a single television commercial while I was reaching for the DVR remote, I thought "Seven Pounds" was a caper movie. (I liked it anyway.)

For movies, sometimes I like to know the spoilers in advance. I feel like a movie should be good on its own, regardless of whether or not you know the ending. I feel like with TV shows, there's so much of a time investment its better to avoid the spoilers. I feel like the whole point with TV shows is the build up over many many episodes and to ruin it is to ruin months of watching. Whereas with a movie, at max you have like two or three hours, it intended for the entire experience to be rewarding, not just the climax. Hard to explain I guess. Glad you are taking a stand about spoilers. Don't let the whiners deter you. The problem is that people have no self control and will click on links if its about anything they are vaguely interested in without thinking whether they should and without really considering the risk of spoilers. A funny problem a couple of friends have had is getting spoilers by looking at merchandise for a show. One friend was watching the Wire, only into the second season, and was looking for merchandise and found a coffee mug for "RIP (MAJOR CHARACTER WHO DIED IN SEASON 3)." Similar thing happened with a friend looking for a Farscape Halloween costume on Ebay, the description of the item mentioned the character dying eventually. I think that's kind of a grey area. But personally, I recently avoided an interview with Jason Isaacs on a variety of topics because it indicated talk about Brotherhood and I haven't watched the third season (I am rewatching the first season with my GF and stand by my assessment that it is an amazing show).

As a longtime Tuned-Inlander, I think we strike the right chord (or, more accurately, James sets a positive tone) here regarding spoilers -- he won't give away what's coming up on the show (and neither do any commentators), but he will post a recap and thoughts on the show the next day (hidden by the "jump") so that all of us can comment and theorize away our productive hours at work.
.
That being said, I foresee a sharp plunge in my work product on January 22nd....a very, VERY sharp plunge.
.
For those of you who are interested, by the way, I'm rewatching all the seasons of Lost, hopefully finishing up in time for Season 5's debut on January 21st. I'm currently on Season 1 -- there is certainly a LOT I forgot about this show, including A) how much of a jerk Jin was initially to Sun, B) how kinda creepy the whole Shannon-Boone relationship was, C) how much the show initially was about the Jack-Kate flirtation/her retreating in secrets, and D) how the show really was, for a very long time in its first season especially, JUST ABOUT survival. Watching the old episodes makes me appreciate, even more strongly, what the writers did in parcelling out the show, episode by episode, and allowing the mystery to build.
.
I'm also struck now by a very prescient Charlie line: "If I had to trust one person to get us off of this island, it'd be John Locke." Very interesting...

@Chaddog - I recently did the same thing, marathoned the earlier seasons to prepare for the show's return. I highly recommend said activity to any lost fans - watching it all at one shot did help me re-appreciate the excellent, gradual storytelling, as well as provide me with an excellent review of the story thus far - there were tons of little details that I had missed, not knowing their future context.
.
I was extremely impressed, in hindsight, with many things - re-watching the character development of both Charlie and Sawyer was, for me, the most satisfying.

@shara -- you want to know what I don't exactly get now, looking back? How quickly Sayid gave up the whole "locate the source of Rousseau's repeating message" thing.
.
This has more to do with island geography (exactly how big is the island, anyway?) than anything else, but after Locke hits Sayid on the head and breaks the transceiver, why did Sayid just give up on locating the radio tower (that we eventually found at the end of Season 3)? I mean, wasn't locating that tower a pretty critical thing in terms of calling for help (even if they didn't know the signal was being jammed by the underwater station)?
.
Of course, I also still wonder why no one ever tried to walk around/canoe around the entire island to determine its size....but that's neither here nor there.

@Chaddogg:

Playing devil's advocate here, as these aren't concrete answers, but:
They didn't really have a canoe, and it took a lot of manpower to build just the raft. Sayid did go around the perimeter of the island to explore, but he had a bad experience with Rousseau. Finding out what happened to her, knowing she's been using the radio tower for 16 yrs without success, may have made him feel that particular avenue was futile.
Best I can do.

Also, I you want to waste more time reliving Lost, I recommend going here:
http://blogs.chron.com/tubular/archives/2007/06/the_celestial_p.html
The blogger started after season 3, and theres a lot of really interesting ideas.

@mcmagnus -- both valid theories, although I'm still not convinced on the Sayid's bad Rousseau experience turning them off to exploring the perimeter of the island theory. I know a raft took a long time (clearly, especially when Walt burns one down), but a quick canoe just for purposes of travelling when the beach wasn't around? And I would think a communications expert like Sayid would have the bravado to think that he could improve/boost the signal, and get it to work (where Rousseau could not). But I do appreciate the devil's advocate.
.
Here's an interesting thought/scene (it's amazing the theories that come to you re-watching the early seasons -- James, you should think about Lost Discussion Group just each handling issues from each season, 1-4, up to the current one): Sawyer witnessing his father's suicide. With all the time warps/etc. involved in the show, and considering we only see papa Sawyer's boots....any thoughts that kid Sawyer saw daddy Sawyer kill himself (in a weird, time-warp sense that he HAD to do so to save everyone, and put kid Sawyer on the path that would lead to everything else in the show)????
.
By the way, if you're looking for amazing Lost season 1 scenes, let me recommend Kate-Sawyer playing "I Never" in the episode "Outlaws." Some amazing stuff there, particularly the climax, where Sawyer says "I never killed a man," they both pause, each drinks shakily, and Sawyer says "Well, I guess we have something in common" in a VERY knowing way.
.
I CANNOT WAIT for Lost to get back!!!