The W
Views: 134164862
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.6.11 2051
The 7 - Movies & TV - TV Critic On Spoiler Alerts Register and log in to post!
(2357 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Post (5 total)
Big Brother
Level: 227

Posts: 8484/17267
EXP: 176338609
For next: 2628256

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 days
#1 Posted on 18.1.07 1407.14
Reposted on: 18.1.14 1410.23

I have nothing to add, except: he makes a lot of points that I agree with!

    We're fine with giving spoiler alerts. Just don't push it, OK?

    Tim Goodman

    Wednesday, January 17, 2007

    Warning -- there are no spoilers in this story. Then again, there might be.

    It used to be that producers (and the networks that aired their shows) were ultraparanoid about critics giving away too much information in reviews. They still are -- but the producers are now joined by a demanding group of television viewers who, aided by TiVo and DVD box sets -- are crying foul over alleged slips of information.

    This season, as the first four episodes of "24" were shipped to critics, the producers sent along a letter urging restraint (such a letter is now regularly wrapped around the advanced copies of most series): "Last year, you complied with our request that you not reveal the most explosive plot twists in your reviews and we genuinely appreciated it. As a result, we're pleased again to offer all four of the opening episodes for your review," wrote Howard Gordon, an executive producer.

    He put "all four" in bold type so we'd be excited. But did you also notice the threat? "As a result." Through the thin veil you get the point -- mess up this year and you might not get previews next year.

    For his part, Gordon added more bold letters and even underlined for emphasis that critics shouldn't give away key points, "specifically the exact nature of how Jack is expected to 'sacrifice' himself, and what happens in the final minutes of the first and fourth hours."

    Fair enough. At least two of those points were big twists.

    Though what constitutes key points is certainly up for debate, most critics did not reveal the three elements that Gordon asked be kept secret. That said, some critics revealed almost nothing, barely writing about the plot at all, and others trod heavily in their descriptions of other scenes, blithely revealing what are now commonly referred to as "spoilers." The Los Angeles Times was particularly informative about what happens to certain characters.

    This week, ABC sent out the next episode of "Lost," which has been off the air for what seems like eight months (and returns Feb. 7), noting in an accompanying press release -- in helpful italics: "We kindly ask that you use your discretion in reviewing this show by not revealing any plot details that contain spoilers."

    What, we can't tell everyone that Jack kills Ben on the operating table? (Kidding.)

    Of course, this advice from ABC conveniently ignores the fact that "Lost" is so confusing that nearly everything could conceivably be a spoiler. Serialized dramas are a minefield for critics, and some viewers believe that there are myriad clues in "Lost" that will provide answers to the "mythology" now playing out. What those clues are depend on what viewers choose to believe. Either way, the end result is often a barrage of angry e-mail as critics across the country unwittingly step in it, so to speak.

    (One reader was annoyed at my "24" review because she had avoided Fox's many previews for the coming season and when I mentioned a plot point already revealed in the promos, she was livid.)

    These are dicey times for critics. I'm a believer that a lot of television is terrible, so why take away whatever joy a viewer might get from a surprise twist? I've read reviews from some critics and thought, "Why not just print the script?" But it can be equally annoying when little or nothing is written about the plot.

    Now, I've certainly let out a few spoilers by accident. I'll admit to that -- but roughly half of what picky readers say are spoilers do not, in fact, qualify as such. Not everything that happens in an hour is a secret that needs to be kept.

    The current danger in reviewing -- of setting off the spoiler alert police -- involves technology and the changing nature of how people watch television.

    First there's TiVo -- or any other DVR. (I'd include VCRs here, but most people can't use them effectively enough to tape and store.)

    Some people will record a show on Monday, then another on Tuesday, three on Wednesday, etc. -- until they are digitally stacked up, ready to watch. Now, let's say that on Friday I write a column about Show A that televised the previous Monday, but that hasn't yet been watched by Picky Viewer from San Francisco. Perhaps, to tap into this new media thing, I even blogged about Show A on Tuesday. Either way, Picky Viewer in San Francisco reads some spoilers online Tuesday, or in the paper on Friday, and fires off a letter.

    Normally, in this TiVo Age, I've been trying to employ a one-week "spoiler alert" policy on shows that people may have recorded but not yet watched (an event I call TiNo). Often, this is not good enough for people. They want spoiler alerts lasting beyond one week. Or they vilify me for not using a spoiler alert (for a show, I should remind you, that has already aired).


    I try to do better. I try not to get annoyed about doing my job in a timely fashion.

    And while getting dinged for lacking a spoiler alert up to a week after the original airing of Show A is sometimes aggravating, it pales in comparison to getting lectured because Picky Viewer in San Francisco has read a deconstruction of Show A on my blog. You know -- on the Web. Where people smirk at you for not live blogging. Soon is often not soon enough -- but sometimes way too soon for others.

    Honestly, I got a few e-mail messages once when I deconstructed "The Sopranos," and the e-mailers read the spoiler-laden recap (all the way through, plus reader comments, it became clear), and demanded that I put up some kind of warning. And here I thought the headline might have been a red flag.

    (Hey, even I have shows stacked up like planes over La Guardia on my three TiVos. People ruin plot points for me all the time.)

    But where I draw the line is the DVD spoiler. You'd be surprised how often this comes up. Let's say I'm reviewing Season 6 of "24" or Season 3 of "Lost" and trying to adhere to the pleas of producers not to give away twists and surprises. I write the review and then receive five or eight e-mail messages from readers who are using Netflix to plow through the first two or five seasons and they complain that I dared to mention something that happened three seasons ago.

    I think it's great that more and more people are buying DVDs or renting them and going on huge marathon benders by the fireplace (and through cold weekends) with lovers and friends. But expecting me to hide secrets revealed two or three years prior? Unacceptable.

    And yet, I can also understand. You may have noticed that I adore a little show called "The Wire." Well, while deconstructing Season 4 on my blog recently, a lot of people happily wrote that after years of prodding (from me and their friends who were diehard fans) they went out and rented the previous seasons to catch up (great!) and were then rudely informed by me that a major character was killed off in Season 3 before they got to that episode (sorry!).

    See, even now I write "major character" instead of the character's name. I've been scarred. So I give you this kind reminder: Please watch your television in a timely manner.

    E-mail Tim Goodman at You can read his blog, the Bastard Machine, at

    Page E - 1
Promote this thread!
Mr. Boffo
Level: 118

Posts: 1841/3844
EXP: 18360562
For next: 22406

Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 1791 days
Last activity: 1751 days
#2 Posted on 18.1.07 1512.58
Reposted on: 18.1.14 1513.44
I agree. On wikipedia, they put spoiler warnings for almost anything. In, for example, Return of the Jedi. Jesus Christ, the movie's almost 25 years old. If my revealing that Darth Vader is Luke's father ruins it for you, then that's too bad. There has to be a statute of limitations on these things.

Also, let me point out , just because I think it's funny.
Level: 73

Posts: 901/1239
EXP: 3377574
For next: 108311

Since: 20.1.02
From: Quebec City, CAN

Since last post: 133 days
Last activity: 2 days
#3 Posted on 19.1.07 0024.48
Reposted on: 19.1.14 0025.24

This is really awesome.

If I can divert the topic slightly off-course for a while, I've always wondered about that scene with the man with the cowboy hat riding a bomb like a horse. Where is it from?
Level: 101

Posts: 998/2735
EXP: 10629486
For next: 88226

Since: 11.5.03
From: Mount Pleasant, Pa.

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 20 hours
#4 Posted on 19.1.07 0231.15
Reposted on: 19.1.14 0232.16
    Originally posted by JST
    If I can divert the topic slightly off-course for a while, I've always wondered about that scene with the man with the cowboy hat riding a bomb like a horse. Where is it from?

Director Stanley Kubrick's film "Dr. Strangelove" (1964)
Lap cheong
Level: 84

Posts: 1059/1741
EXP: 5634679
For next: 27297

Since: 2.1.02
From: Worcester MA

Since last post: 78 days
Last activity: 1 day
#5 Posted on 19.1.07 1135.35
Reposted on: 19.1.14 1136.07
    Originally posted by Kevintripod
    Director Stanley Kubrick's film "Dr. Strangelove" (1964)

Thanks for ruining the end of the movie for me, jerk

Thread ahead: The O'Reilly Colbert Factor Report
Next thread: Sundance Film Festival opens tonight
Previous thread: Movies out 1/19 - I mean, "movie" out 1/19
(2357 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Related threads: The OC Airs Series Finale Feb. 22 - The Return of First Run Television - TV Critics pick their "Best of 2006" - More...
The 7 - Movies & TV - TV Critic On Spoiler AlertsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

©2001-2018 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.577 seconds.