Spoiler (media)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2008)

Spoiler is Generation X slang for any element of any summary or description of any piece of fiction that reveals any plot element which will give away the outcome of a dramatic episode within the work of fiction, or the conclusion of the entire work. Because enjoyment of fiction sometimes depends upon the dramatic tension and suspense which arising within it, the external revelation of such plot elements can "spoil" the enjoyment that some consumers of the narrative would otherwise have experienced.

Contents 1 On the Internet 2 In print or other media 3 See also 4 References

[edit] On the Internet

The term spoiler was introduced in the early days of the internet, on the internet, and is often associated with specialist Internet sites and in newsgroup postings. Early rules of netiquette insisted that spoilers could and should be normally avoided, but if the posting of "spoiling" information was unavoidable, it be preceded by a warning ("SPOILER!"), or the spoiler itself has to be masked so that it can not be visible to any but those keen for details and not fazed at the thought of such potentially plot-revealing information. Sometimes, these warnings are omitted, accidentally or deliberately (see below), and some unwitting readers have had literature, films, television programmes and other works that they were looking forward to experiencing "unspoiled".^[1]

There is among internet users a socially unique but pointedly expressed insistence on being protected from material considered to include "spoiler" information by website operators or forum moderators, even in the internet version of settings where such material has conventionally and historically appeared, such as discussion groups or literary reviews. As a result of this level of objection to spoilers, trolls may post them purely for their own pleasure – finding amusement in believing they are completely ruining a narrative experience for others. On reputable websites, these can be reported to moderators and such posts taken down, the posters blacklisted, but only after the fact. Conversely, many who wish to discuss a fictional work in depth, including the outcomes of events and the handling of the narrative resolution, feel compelled to avoid participating on public websites altogether, set up "closed" websites to exclude those who are sensitive about spoilers, or unilaterally blog at the expense of public exchange. The appearance of spoilers on an internet website is not considered a violation of terms and conditions by any ISP.

On Usenet, the common method for obscuring spoiler information is to precede it with many blank lines known as 'spoiler space' – traditionally enough to push the information in question on to the next screen of a 25-line terminal. A simple cipher called ROT13 is also used in newsgroups to obscure spoilers, but is rarely used for this purpose elsewhere.

Some producers actively seed bogus information in order to misdirect fans. The director of the film Terminator Salvation states: "We've launched a disinformation campaign... I'll deliberately release things to get people off the scent of what we're actually doing."^[2]

[edit] In print or other media

One of the first print uses of the terms was from the National Lampoon issue of April 1971^[3]. In an article entitled "Spoilers," writer Doug Kenney lists spoilers for famous films and movies.

The Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert wrote an article entitled "Critics have no right to play spoiler" which contained spoilers and spoilers warnings. Ebert wrote:

The characters in movies do not always do what we would do. Sometimes they make choices that offend us. That is their right. It is our right to disagree with them. It is not our right, however, to destroy for others the experience of being as surprised by those choices as we were. A few years ago, I began to notice "spoiler warnings" on Web-based movie reviews -- a shorthand way of informing the reader that a key plot point was about to be revealed. Having heard from more than a few readers accusing me of telling too much of the story, I began using such warnings in my reviews.

Ebert used two spoiler warnings in the article, saying "If you have not yet seen Million Dollar Baby and know nothing about the plot, read no further" and later said, "Now yet another spoiler warning, because I am going to become more explicit." Ebert discussed six films in the article and mentioned how many critics handled The Crying Game and also noted a detail about the film The Year of Living Dangerously. Ebert also mentioned two films alongside Million Dollar Baby.^[4]

In an interview about his Dark Tower series (appearing in issue #4 of the 2007 Marvel Comic adaptation The Gunslinger Born), Stephen King was asked if there are spoilers in the first few novels that would ruin someone's experience of the comic. "There are no spoilers!", King replied, "You might as well say 'I'm never gonna watch Wizard of Oz again because I know how it comes out'".

The 2008 Doctor Who two-part story "Silence in the Library"/"Forest of the Dead" made use of the concept of spoilers within the story's narrative, such as Donna Noble almost reading books from her future, and the Doctor meeting a woman who knows him yet in his timeline he hasn't met yet.

[edit] See also

• Teaser trailer
• Film trailer
• Film criticism

[edit] References