This Side of Paradise question (spoiler)

[MarsWeeps]

I have to laugh at the spoiler tag in the title. Spoiler...for an episode that's 45 years old?

[emergencyfruit]

MarsWeeps wrote:

---

I have to laugh at the spoiler tag in the title. Spoiler...for an episode that's 45 years old?

It was my first post on the forum. :P Better safe than sorry, no?

[CorporalCaptain]

emergencyfruit wrote:

---

It was my first post on the forum. :P Better safe than sorry, no?

I don't have a problem with it.

[22 Stars]

It is pretty laughable. Reminds me of a friend who was discussing King Kong with his father, and let slip that the monkey dies at the end.... now what is that, like 79 year old spoiler at this point!?

[Greg Cox]

22 Stars wrote:

---

It is pretty laughable. Reminds me of a friend who was discussing King Kong with his father, and let slip that the monkey dies at the end.... now what is that, like 79 year old spoiler at this point!?

The sad thing is, they were probably people going to the Peter Jackson version that had never seen the original b/w version.

But you'd think they'd have at least heard how it ended!

[CorporalCaptain]

How about we simply let emergencyfruit know that the board rules don't require spoiler designations for things that old, and just move on without calling it "laughable"?

[22 Stars]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

The sad thing is, they were probably people going to the Peter Jackson version that had never seen the original b/w version.

But you'd think they'd have at least heard how it ended!

Greg, I agree, and the funny thing is I think it was the father who hadn't seen it, and he may have been around in 1933 for the first run!

Oh and I read 'spoiler' and laughed, so it was laughable, but i meant no disrespect to the OP, for the record.

[doubleohfive]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

I don't have a problem with it.

Nor do I. As has been ably demonstrated by some of the posters on this board, there's very little respect for spoilerific information on sites like Facebook and even in threads on this board. I much prefer to err on the side of caution and always appreciate it when others do as well, no matter how old the film or tv show being discussed is.

I mean, the twist at Psycho is something that was ruined for me before I saw the film. That sucked. Alternatively, imagine something less important like the Yoda reveal in Empire Strikes Back or who Keyser Soze is in The Usual Suspects or the twist at the end of The Sixth Sense.

If I had my druthers, we'd always include spoiler tags for such things because there's just no way to know who has seen what by when, and frankly it's not all that much extra work to include in a post.

Your mileage may vary of course and I know there are those who disagree with me, but I stand by my opinion on this.

[22 Stars]

^ wow, i acknowledge your opinion on this, though I think the ship has sailed long ago on this. Media outlets, let alone yokels on the internet routinely 'spoil' things, with the approval of the producers. Last week Letterman was chatting with a guest and spoke as if it were common knowledge regarding characters in his upcoming movie. I had already guessed the contents of this conversation but, damn, now THAT was a spoiler for someone who cared and didn't know.

A plot point, not even the punchline of the episode, of a 45 year old episode on a board full of people who worship it, hardly needs a spoiler.

[doubleohfive]

Well, I suppose the difference is simply whether or not it's a spoiler about something you've (the general you) seen already or not.

I'd rather not be spoiled myself, and get supremely irritated when I do, inadvertently because someone else didn't have the momentary consideration to use a spoiler tag or warning. But like I said, that's just me.

Either way, I think it's a bit much to be teasing a newbie poster about it after their first post on the board.

[22 Stars]

I agree, and no teasing was intended from here.

There must be a fun site with classic 'non spoilers' **BTW, Truman beats Dewey!** and the like.

[scotpens]

22 Stars wrote:

---

There must be a fun site with classic 'non spoilers' **BTW, Truman beats Dewey!** and the like.

"It's a COOKBOOK!"

[teacake]

If you don't want to be spoiled on a 45 year old show then don't read a forum about a 45 year old show. If you had to post spoilers for TOS every single post would be one big spoiler tag.

OMG Kirk isn't really dead in Amok Time!!!!

I got spoiled on Enterprise because I looked at the forum a couple years after it was over, before I'd seen it to the end. Guess whose fault that was.. mine.

OP, I think it is sweet you erred on the side of caution. It's a big forum and when you're new it's a little nerve wracking to figure out what is acceptable and what isn't at times.

[tighr]

One possible exception* to that rule is if a poster is doing a watch-thread, and invites participation from others, especially if they have never watched a particular series (in this case, perhaps TOS?). I have participated in a few threads like that, and as we follow along on the show with the OP, it's best to not tell them information about upcoming episodes. Sure, TOS is 45 years old, TNG is 25, DS9 and Voyager are 15 years old at this point, but if you're watching them all at once, it's still new to you.

*Just an exception to the rule. Doesn't stop spoilers from being posted in other people's threads, obviously. Abandon hope all ye who enter, blah blah...

[teacake]

Yes I agree tighr that is the exception. The poster usually requests no spoilers and people are good about reminding each other and editing posts if something slips through. That's a specific thread set up that way and it works well. Wouldn't work for a whole forum though, I can't even imagine how irritating it would be to discuss stuff if you had to spoiler tag constantly.