Avoiding spoilers for other shows

August 2, 2017 4:27 PM

Sometimes discussion of a show will contain spoilers for a different show. What's the etiquette or policy on this? SPOILERS for Game of Thrones, Twin Peaks, and Better Call Saul within.

For example, in the most recent Game of Thrones show only thread, there are a few direct references to character deaths or near-deaths or maybe-deaths in other shows:

I called this two weeks ago with Twin Peaks and will do the same here - you never see her actually die. She's fully cognizant - not even 'poisoned and weak' fumbling - when Jaime leaves the room. Anyone who doesn't die on screen (and even some that do) cannot be assumed dead.

and

Compare and contrast: significant character, last seen watching her daughter (likely/possibly) start to die from a poisoned kiss says "that's my final appearance" / vs / significant character last seen in a house that is on fire, and show runner says even if that character is dead, that doesn't mean this is the last we've seen of him, in part due to flashbacks (Better Call Saul s03 e10 podcast recap).

To me, these are both pretty clear spoilers for the respective shows. Even though the poster doesn't name the character, when you get to that episode (of BCS at least, I haven't seen the new Twin Peaks yet) it will be pretty obvious who they're talking about or what's going to happen.

Is there a policy on this, or what are other people's expectations here? It seems like the mention of Twin Peaks in the first example is totally superfluous. The poster could have said "I called this two weeks ago with another show" or just left out that part entirely. The mention of BCS is probably necessary when doing a direct comparison of both shows but I don't know if it's worth spoiling the season finale just so someone can make that comparison.

There are limits to this expectation:

• I definitely expect to read spoilers for the show being discussed, up to and including the episode being discussed.
• And I can't complain about spoilers for older series.
• And maybe spoilers for a different, recent series are more acceptable where the series are so related that you can expect watchers of the being-discussed series to have also seen the other series (like spoiling Breaking Bad in a BCS thread).

But the third seasons of Twin Peaks and BCS are still recent enough that it's reasonable to expect to remain unspoiled until you have a chance to watch them. And they aren't so closely related to GoT that people discussing GoT should be assumed to have seen them.

This could be an unreasonable request on my part, though--thoughts?

posted by mama casserole (6 comments total)

I agree with you.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:19 PM on August 2, 2017

Both of those didn't need to be mentioned at all and both of the commentors could be given a firm and brisk stink eye for a least 5 seconds, along with snarky gif emailed to them (That's a joke, don't do that).
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:04 AM on August 3, 2017

I should also mention that, yes, I flagged the Twin Peaks one as soon as I saw it (so probably Monday morning, as I don't usually read the thread until the next day). I guess the moderator didn't see it as an issue. Fanfare's spoiler policy is specific to the show/universe being discussed; it doesn't say anything about unrelated works.
posted by mama casserole at 7:13 AM on August 3, 2017

I cringed at some people dropping references to the GoT premiere on the Twin Peaks threads, too, especially since they both run at the same time. It seemed quite likely for a person to have watched one, but be saving the other.
posted by He Is Only The Imposter at 9:49 AM on August 3, 2017 [1 favorite]

OMG the Twin Peaks one made me crazy mad when I read it. Thank you for pointing this out. No spoilers ever, anywhere!
posted by silverstatue at 7:37 PM on August 3, 2017 [3 favorites]

I didn't read the whole post because I haven't caught up on Better Call Saul, so I guess that makes me anti-spoiler.
posted by exogenous at 1:04 PM on August 7, 2017