Comments on: Fast Return – June 2007

By: Foo

Foo — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 02:09:50 +0000

Well, there was a spoiler (sans tag) on OG a wee while back which said that John Simm was playing the Master. This was replaced within a day with a spoiler tag but I had already read it by that point. I’m not sure if it was the June 15 post – it may have been an earlier one. It was basically the first ‘official’ confirmation that Simm was playing the Master (as there had been much rumour/conjecture prior to this). It’s very tricky with this sort of thing when pages are edited retrospectively – it can make you feel like you are going crazy!

Jono – I didn’t pick up on that song being a Scissor Sister song, but a review I read yesterday mentioned it to and I had to see which one. Interesting – you’re either a fan or can’t stand them…wonder if that is what put Adam off (among other things!)

By: Jono

Jono — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 05:57:10 +0000

I went spoiler free for Episode 13 (except for the final scene… damn you Stuff, and such!), and had what I think was my first ever audible gasp during an episode, such was my surprise at a certain event… (and it wasn’t that a Scissor Sister song turned up!).

I even try going spoiler free for all of Series 4 – a bold statement I know, but dammit, I’ll try!

By: Paul Scoones

Paul Scoones — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 23:25:47 +0000

I know, I know! I’m back on the 12-step program now…

By: Thad Ritchards

Thad Ritchards — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 21:58:57 +0000

I think the moral to all this is: avoid OG! When I went there after S3 finished, I still came across lots of stuff that were (small) spoilers…and I read the damn things!
Just say “don’t refresh”!

By: Paul Scoones

Paul Scoones — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 21:36:05 +0000

Ah, now when I posted my comment above, I thought you were referring to an entirely different news item. You see when I clicked on your “this” link I got the news item about the two different RT covers (Master & Doctor) at the top of the page, and assumed that was the exposed spoiler you were referring to. Hence my point above about how if something’s been published for public consumption in the RT it’s fair game, etc.

I realise now (I really must pay closer attention!) that you were actually referring to the news item from 15 June about the Last of the Time Lords programme synopsis. I read that item at the time and the hidden spoiler box was definitely present. I’m sure about this because I have a guilty confession to make.

I saw that spoiler button, hesitated with with mouse finger trembling, and then in a rare moment of weakness I clicked on the button and read the spoiler. I wish I hadn’t, but I did. After I’d been so good all year avoiding spoilers, I fell off the wagon.

By: Peter A

Peter A — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 18:32:57 +0000

I doubt it. That sort of warning would have stopped a bull elephant. Jono or Foo migh be able to confirm, as they did the same thing.

By: Thad Ritchards

Thad Ritchards — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:02:23 +0000

The current text is reading “and contains major plot spoilers in its summary for Last of the Time Lords, the final episode of Series Three. If you don’t mind being spoiled”

Sounds like serious spoiler warnings to me. (No idea if it read like that before.)

By: Alden

Alden — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:52:05 +0000

I’d also like to point out that that news item says it was “Posted By Josiah Rowe”, so I think we should blame him for the wording rather than Shaun.

By: Peter A

Peter A — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 18:32:28 +0000

Alden’s right, and as god is my witness I’ll cling to any liferaft I can at this stage (thanks mate!). But my initial peeve was, as I say in the original piece, the term “spoilerish”. Given that it set up the scenario for a story two weeks in advance of the Master’s emergence, there’s no “ish” about it.

So two things really:

1. Either the RT is getting really mercenary or the Beeb/RTD are putting the cart before the horse promotion-wise (as, arguably, they did with the Sec cover)

2. I don’t really buy the “well it’s in the RT so it’s in the public domain” argument. Chiefly because I also don’t buy the RT, but it strikes me that in a usual situation that blurb would be behind a tag marked “spoiler” and not some wishy-washy “maybe, sort of, possibly not” term. Taxonomy’s a bitch, I should know, but I really do think that in this instance Shaun dropped the ball.

By: Alden

Alden — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:07:27 +0000

Perhaps the problem is more that the javascript which is supposed to hide the spoilers doesn’t seem to be doing it’s job!