Spoiler Policy at Convention Panels

[major_clanger]

A question about spoiler policy when discussing TV shows on convention panels, prompted by an experience at Redemption 07 last weekend.

I watched one panel, and took part in another, that discussed Battlestar Galactica. In both cases, the spoiler policy was that we should not discuss Season 3 at all, because as it had only been broadcast on satellite/cable, and no DVD had yet been released, not everyone had had the chance to see it. I was a bit taken aback by this, as in my experience spoiler policy has usually been 'it is reasonable to discuss material that has been shown in the UK via the medium where most people will see it. In other words, if a series is previewing on cable but is going to be broadcast on terrestrial, it is fair to consider it spoiler-prone. But if it is only going to be on Sky for the foreseeable future, is that not how most people are going to see it? Given that the panel I was on was discussing politics, and some of the most interesting stuff in BSG happens early in Season 3 (as in blatant glorification of terrorism!) this was quite a constraint.

So, here are three different scenarios, depending on whether a series will show on satellite/cable then terrestrial, satellite/cable only, or where it's not due for a UK broadcast at all:

[Poll #936197]

Comments

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

For my money, nothing is "spoiler safe". If you go to/join in a discussion of a TV series, or, for that matter, an author or a film or a comic then you must expect it to be spoilered at some point or another, if only because people forget.

[frandowdsofa.livejournal.com]

I've been fretting about this for Contemplation, especially in light of the Virgin/Sky debacle.

Because now we will have people who have:

not seen Series 3
seen Series 3 up to the point where Sky vanished off their cable (ie this week's being the last)
seen Series 3 up to the point where Sky is showing it on satellite
seen Series 3 ages ago via download
seen Series 3 on its broadcast schedule in another country

I was in another item where some of the audience asked for no spoilers on BG3 as they hadn't seen it, and as it was just a passing example the panel was happy to drop it.

Discussion is always spoiler-prone, see the people on the internet who got upset when Lord of the Rings plot was discussed before the movies came out, because they'd never read the book, even though it had been out for more than twice their lifetime.

I'm leaning towards having a clear statement for a programme item that is focussed on a show, like BG, about what will be discussed, and if you don't want spoilers please don't attend the item. And asking moderators to specify it again when the item starts.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

I saw the flamewars on the Babylon 5 newsgroups. It all went silly, after one episode title was, reasonably enough, considered a spoiler, and then suddenly people were saying you couldn't mention any episode titles. It got a bit complicated because the scheduling was difference on S4C (the Welsh version of C4), but up until then episode titles had been accepted as a clear warning.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

Can you fill me in on this Virgin/Sky thing? I don't know what it's about, but if Sky stop showing Galactica, then I'll cancel Sky as I've been hovering on the edge for a while now.

Will there be some other channel showing it?

[frandowdsofa.livejournal.com]

Sky is still showing everything (Battlestar, Stargate, Atlantis, 24, Lost, Bones, whatever) but as of Wednesday midnight, if you get Sky on cable via Virgin Media, you're buggered. Sky and Virgin have failed to reach an agreement to renew the contract for Virgin to carry Sky, each blaming the other. It's all still there on satellite, or through other cable providers.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

There's been some cablle company takeovers going on--I think all the major players are Virgin Media now. At least, that's the impression I get from discussions on Usenet of the broadband business.

[twinfair.livejournal.com]

Virgin Media is the new name for NTL/Telewest and part of the Virgin empire. Richard Branson and Virgin are the largest share holder of the newly formed company.

Branson and Murdoch (from Sky) have had a number of very public rows recently (including BSkyB buying 19% of ITV to stop any takeover of ITV by Virgin Media). Now Sky has hiked the price of carrying its content on cable (rumours suggest they have doubled the price). Virgin Media is pointing out this is actually the commercial price and so they could not make any money on the programmes.

They are still in discussion but if no deal is reached, Virgin Media will not be showing a number of Sky channels (including Sky 1) from Thursday 1st.

I have heard a lot of people say if Virgin does not carry Sky 1 they will defect which is exactly what Sky wants of course, and I hate to see a bully win. But Sky admit they will lose up to £30m in advertising revenue if they cannot come to a deal as well. So it seems both companies could lose out as well, of course, as the cable viewing public.

[frandowdsofa.livejournal.com]

Yes, I will defect, I will defect to torrenting the shows I want. So neither of them will win. We have cable phone and broadband, so it's probably worth staying with them for the tellybox, but I suspect most of the channels we watch regularly are on freeview now.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

Phew. I'm on satellite.

[yalovetz]

Generally, if I'm going along to a panel without having seen episodes of the show under discussion that I know some other people have seen, then I will expect to get spoilered, and accept that. If I'm going along to a panel when I have seen all available episodes, but I know other people haven't, then I'll try to avoid spoiling them where ever possible. So my answers to the poll change based on whether I'm in a position to spoil or be spoiled. I answered as I were the potential spoiler, so my answers reflect what I would comfortably and openly discuss in a panel, without first voicing some sort of spoiler warning, or asking if everyone was okay with my talking about episodes outside of that sphere. However, if I were answering with myself in mind as a potential spoilee, I would answer that all discussions (where I haven't already seen all available episodes) are spoiler-prone, and that I implicitly accept the spoiler risk when I choose to participate in them. Urgh, hope that makes sense.

[pingopark.livejournal.com]

Personally, I hate spoilers, I've had some TV series and films ruined to a greater or lesser extent by them. But I accept that these days I am often way behind other people, as I don't have Sky.
So I try to avoid/divert conversations that seem to be heading into areas that are new to me, which normally works.
In cases where I am now ahead of people due to downloads I try very hard not to reveal anything to people who haven't had a chance to see it.
And at cons I never attend any programme items on shows where I am not absolutely up to date, which means I don't normally go to any now, which is a bit of a shame.

[pingopark.livejournal.com]

I don't have Sky by choice. There's not much on it I want to see or that I'm not prepared to wait for. It's a shame I can't keep up with some discussions in the pub, but I can live with that, especially as it is now possible to get access to "essentials" by other means. Also, I watch too much TV as it is.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

You didn't have an option for "show of hands among the audience for what policy to adopt". That would be my preference if I was there.

[frandowdsofa.livejournal.com]

What if it's too close to call?

Plus if we use the Contemplation example, we'll have invited panellists and green-roomed them based on an expectation of a specific discussion, and if the audience votes against that discussion taking place, where do we go from there? If we thought that we wouldn't be able to discuss Battlestar Galactica as seen since Concussion, there wouldn't be much point in having the panel at all, because it would be just a repeat.

[yalovetz]

Advertise it explicitly as a discussion of x, y, z episodes. People can choose whether they want to attend based on whether they've seen x, y, z episodes, or mind being spoilered for them. Then if discussion moves into territory beyond the advertised episodes, a show of hands can determine whether to go with the flow or stick with the planned topic.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

I guess there's also the option of deciding beforehand and stating in the programme book what the spoiler situation will be. We missed a beat on that one.

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

Sectus (Harry Potter) is running over the weekend when the 7th book is being released, they are dividing the next day's items into spoiler-free and spoiler (and I believe dividing them by floor!) so those who won't stay up all night reading the new book won't find out that Harry nearly dies and Snape gives his life so Harry can be saved


(.... or like, whatever, grin!)

[inamac.livejournal.com]

Watervole's 'show of hands' option is probably the line of least resistance - but what do you do if the majority want to restrict discussion to one series aired on terrestrial when later series includes explainations/deviations form series 1? Short of restricting the panelists to those who've only seen that series I can't think of any way of enforcing a 'spoiler-free' discusion. These days, if it's been publicly available, anywhere, then it should be open for discussion - and if people don't want to hear spoilers then they don't have to attend.

Mind you, these days I have such a short memory that I wouldn't remember plots of things I'd seen the night before, so am unlikely to remember anything I heard at a convention three months before watching the show.

[frandowdsofa.livejournal.com]

And the big spoiler problem that I have is not related to whether it's been shown yet, but whether there is gossip out there because of casting issues etc. I read no celebrity gossip magazines, and am not in any fan forums online, because I hate knowing who is leaving Coronation Street, who's being murdered, who's getting married. I like to have gossippy conversations about where plotlines might go, but that's the same as standing over the back fence and discussing who's the father of her-next-door's baby. I don't want someone saying, well, it's common knowledge that so-and-so's getting divorced, because that actor has just said so on a chat show. And that's very difficult to avoid.

Re: Your Icon

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

It just kept on occurring to me that Adama clearly wants to say "Get the hell off my Battlestar" but has the spectre of Johnny "Nuke'Em" Sheridan to restrain him.

Of course, "You can frak right off!" would be more in keeping with the show's ethos vis-a-vis swearing.