Comments on: Another great spoiler debate

By: Salamander

Salamander — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 01:01:20 +0000

The review is a more important piece of entertainment – than the entertainment itself? That’s failed logic, mate. The review does not exist if not for the entertainment itself. Your logic and motivation are flawed. Take a back seat.
The facts of ‘what actually happens’ in Cinema or TV, are not NEARLY as relevant to whether it’s good or not as the manner in which they wish to expose the art to us? The rhythm, structure, presentation, and general handling of the characters involved is what makes something entertaining (or compelling). If your goal is to command my interest to your material as much as what inspired it? You’re shooting yourself in the foot. I’m not paying attention – because I don’t trust your ability to recognize what’s in it for me. It’s not about Who Got Killed. It’s about how. And the How, is the color around the event. Not the event itself. Consider style and approach. Don’t pander to the simplicity of A, B, C. That’s kindergarten crap.
Folly, you fool…

By: Gabriel Burgess

Gabriel Burgess — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:56:49 +0000

I’ll just take this essay as a blanket spoiler alert.
Thanks for the warning, Ken. Now I know to never read a review with your name on it ever again.
Jackass.

By: Suzan

Suzan — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 04:13:52 +0000

I don’t want to know. I’m a huge fan of Lost and what makes the show special are the surprise plot turns. If you knew Locke was in a wheelchair pre-Island, would the “Walkabout” episode (early Season 1) have been as powerful? Thankfully EW.com for the most part is respectful to its readers (I know better than to read Doc Jensen’s columns until Friday). By comparison, I can’t even go over to TV Guide.com because their home page would announce up front that someone is going to die on Lost. I don’t want to be watching, see Sawyer stub his toe, and think, “Is Sawyer the one who’s going to die?!?”

By: REV

REV — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:50:01 +0000

Like others have already said, it’s certainly Ken Tucker’s prerogative to include spoilers in his reviews if he feels he must, just as it’s EW’s prerogative to publish (or not publish) Tucker’s spoilerish reviews.
He appears to feel that he’d be compromising his journalistic integrity (such as it is, on matters of pop culture) to post a review that holds back on key revelations. I can understand that position, but nonetheless disagree with it. Schwarzbaum and Gleiberman seem to do just fine getting their points across without “skipping to the last page,” so to speak. At the very least, they wave people off when they feel they must divulge key information.
I’m one of those folks who prefers to experience a story in the way the creator(s) intended it to unfold. As such, after having read Tucker’s position on spoilers, I’m far more prone to skip over his articles in the future.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:52:56 +0000

From a review of SATC from the Chicago Tribune – Ken Tucker, take note:
‘I would have been extremely annoyed if anyone had tarnished the not-inconsiderable joy of watching the (jealously guarded) story line unfold, so I’ll just sit on my hands for a moment until the urge to reveal spoilers has passed.’

By: Susan

Susan — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:02:47 +0000

Not only is Tucker presumptuous and pretentious in his assertions, he is also the same in calling his self-serving, little tirade an ‘essay’. Please.

By: Crane

Crane — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:59:29 +0000

It’s really great to know that Ken Tucker is fine with spoiling shows and movies for everyone, and that he is able to get a good night’s sleep having done so… ’cause it’s all about you, Ken. I have officially stopped reading anything KT writes – his is an opinion I can do without.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:08:15 +0000

How pompus and presumptious to tell someone “how” they should experience any form of entertainment. If you don’t want to be “spoiled” steer clear. And “spoiler alerts” are good manners. But refusing to put out a spoiler because YOU think YOU know better how somoene should get to experience a movie is arrogant beyond belief!!!!!!!

By: Veronica

Veronica — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 04:05:11 +0000

I will accept small minor tidbits. Lost is my show. If something shows up saying “X was signed onto the show as a character with a legal history” I am perfectly fine with that. Sometimes even the characters name. Or something saying “So and So was spotted on a Hawaiin beach” or “Darlton said keep an eye on this person”
I am not find with finding out who the Oceanic Six were before the season aired. Or who is killed in a certain episode. Big, plot point relevant info should be kept out of public knowledge.
And I wish these paparizzi (or ameteur photographers) could keep their camera’s to themselves. The Iron Man tidbit is just unbelievable. The Producers, Writers, Actors, Directors, and Set Crew deserve a little respect. Like letting them release the first photographs.

By: Eli

Eli — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:29:23 +0000

I don’t care either way. If something is spoiled for me I just considered it watched, and skip over it, if not, then I enjoy it. I don’t spend my time looking for information about tv shows or on the internet. i just imagine the people who go spoiler happy and people who make their pop culture and going from site to site looking and posting spoilers are definetely a type… probably obese, wasting too much time on the computers posting, spoiling and over sharing their pov’s on the internet. Unlike them, I have a life.