Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Skyring wrote:
The distinction is that reviews are intended for people who haven't read the book or seen the film. They aren't encyclopaedia articles which are intended to give information and commentary.
(Besides, I've seen plenty of print reviews with spoiler warnings in them.)
May I call your bluff on that?
The trouble with finding these is that
- most reviewers simply don't mention spoilers at all (with quite a number
of them telling you they're leaving the spoiler out) 2) most reviews you'll find in a Google search aren't going to be print reviews 3) I'm on a dialup connection.
Still, I managed to find a couple:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19921218/REVIEWS/2...
"I would prefer, in fact, that you put this review aside until you see the film. If you read on, I will do my best not to spoil your own discoveries."
This one http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042700... has a "spoiler alert" in the middle of the article. So does this one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101... Of course I can't prove these weren't added for the web version.
Here's another Roger Ebert one where he not only includes a spoiler warning in the article itself, but also defends the practice of using spoiler warnings: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050129/COMMENTAR...
Here's a Time magazine article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1604863,00.html
"Fair warning: here's where the spoilers begin."
Thanks for doing that. I found their usage in the Washington Post items a little pointless and unconvincing,. but at least the others require further mention.
I have to admit that Roger Ebert made some good points. He showed a great deal of sensitivity about the two movies that he discussed. But does saying, "A lady boxer is badly6 injured in a fight, and her coach helps her to kill herseld," really deal with the impact of the story. An impactful movie goes beyond the basic plot. It not only gives a message, but it gives it well in a way that does not fit into a plot summary. Great stories beg to be seen again when the plot is already well known. When you tell stories to children, they like to hear you repeat the same story. Until now I have had no desire to see "Million Dollar Baby." Why would I want to see a movie about a lady Rocky? Now that I know what it's about I would consider it more favorably.
The "Sopranos" article has a somewhat different reason for having the spoiler warning: It's a brand new show. By the end of the series the warning can come off, and viewers can spend more time relating to the various themes than run through the series. They can't do that if they are missing plot details. That commentator says, "Death on The Sopranos can be operatic or bathetic." I'm afraid that the same can be said of cherished practices at Wikipedia.
I can concede that there are places where spoiler warnings may be warranted, but why can't they be plain text warnings in places where they really matter? If those who support warnings, had used them with judgement and sensitivity the whole issue would have simply flown under the radar. Putting it in a template puts the tool in the hand of every crufter to be used in situations that are inversely proportional to their importance or necessity.
Ec