Conference bookie::movies

Re: .20

	To do a spoiler warning please do not insert a bunch of empty
	lines.  Instead simply insert a form-feed (Control-L) character,
	usually after a line with [spoiler warning] on it.  For example:

[spoiler warning]

	This text is hidden after a spoiler warning.

RE .21 --

Text after a Ctrl-L is NOT hidden if you're using the DECwindows interface!
So adding a bunch of empty lines works fine for those who use that interface,
like me. :-)  (I suspect Ctrl-L also doesn't work for those who use the
Windows or Mac interface [TeamLinks Conferencing].)

I have no idea how my quoting of .20 below will show up in the character-cell
terminal interface... :-)

-- Nina

>Re: .20
>
>	To do a spoiler warning please do not insert a bunch of empty
>	lines.  Instead simply insert a form-feed (Control-L) character,
>	usually after a line with [spoiler warning] on it.  For example:
>
>[spoiler warning]
>
>	This text is hidden after a spoiler warning.

> Text after a Ctrl-L is NOT hidden if you're using the DECwindows interface!

	Out of curiosity, what % of noters use a character-cell interface
	and what % use a Windows based interface?

> So adding a bunch of empty lines works fine for those who use that interface,
> like me. :-)

	Are you realy sure of that?  When I used to use a Windowed interface
	to NOTES I was able to display 40 or more lines on the display
	at the same time.  Ie. a bunch of empty lines was almost worthless,
	while on the other hand was very annoying to character-cell interface
	users.

	FWIW, the unofficial NOTES ediquitte for a spoiler warning is as
	I described (and is in active use in this conference).  However may
	I suggest as an in-between that both forms (Control/L and random
	number of empty lines) of spoiler warnings simply be replaced by
	2 or 3 empty lines?

> I have no idea how my quoting of .20 below will show up in the character-cell
> terminal interface... :-)

	It looks like it completely screwed up the cct interface as it
	gives the appearance that you quoted .21 instead :-)

	Just ignore me, I've got Dick Asssmania!

RE .9 (formerly 730.29) -- No need to apologize!  This has come up many times
in this conference; your other reply (730.20) just happened to be the latest
catalyst. :-) 

RE .7 --

>	Out of curiosity, what % of noters use a character-cell interface
>	and what % use a Windows based interface?

I have no idea, but I don't want people entering replies in this conference
about what Notes interface they use...!  :-) If you are (or someone is) really
curious, you could conduct a poll and ask people to send you their responses 
BY MAIL, then post a summary of the results.

>> So adding a bunch of empty lines works fine for those who use that
>> interface, like me. :-)
>
>	Are you realy sure of that? 

Well, I'm certainly sure of the "like me" part! :-) The default window size in
DECwindows Notes seems to be close to 24 lines (i.e., terminal size), and I
happen not to have changed it (or at least not by much).  So a few empty lines
serves to hide spoilers from *my* view.  Of course that may not be true of
everyone who uses the DECwindows interface, depending on how they've set their
window sizes.

>	FWIW, the unofficial NOTES ediquitte for a spoiler warning is as
>	I described (and is in active use in this conference).  However may
>	I suggest as an in-between that both forms (Control/L and random
>	number of empty lines) of spoiler warnings simply be replaced by
>	2 or 3 empty lines?

Sounds reasonable to me.  We just can't assume these days that EVERYONE is
using a terminal interface...

-- Nina

And in case anyone was wondering, Ctrl-L does nothing for the
Microsoft Windows interface (known as TeamLinks Conferencing
for Windows), either.  The one in .1 shows up as kind of an 
upside-down L in the left margin, above the "spoiler" text,
which is clearly in view in the window.

FWIW.

-- Nina (from her PC)

And in case anyone ELSE was wondering, if you get notes from a program that
batches them up and mails them to yo (I personally think the basic notes
interface is bad) mail does not recognize a Ctrl-L as form feed (so it can
stop) unless it is column 1, so it is WORSE than useless if you don't put
it there.  I understand that the left margin is an artifact of the editor,
but trying to read notes with spoilers without a scroll bar is REALLY a
pain.

Barb, from EMACS

> ... mail does not recognize a Ctrl-L as form feed (so it can
> stop) unless it is column 1, ...

	I use xmh (on ULTRIX :-) and it plain don't stop reguardless
	of which column it's in ....

    
    So... we all know how to hide a spoiler.... Can anyone define what 
    a spoiler is?  Where to draw the line?  I asked this question in the
    "Powder" (962) topic originally today, but I have since deleted it... as it
    really belongs here...
    
    Thanks,
    Steve
    
    ATTACHED: 962.4--->910.15
    
    Oh... I forgot.... Basenoter (John?)... You might ought to have tossed 
    a spoiler warning in there somewhere. Great review though... don't get 
    me wrong.  Maybe.. cuz I saw the movie, I can't really look at it 
    objectively to decide wether it is a spoiler or not.
    
    After all.. it's exactly the kind of info you would get by watching
    S&E or watching/listening to/reading any other reviewer/critic for 
    that matter.
    
    What is the definition of a spoiler anyway?  That must be a hard 
    to draw since I'm having so much difficulty with it.  This would be 
    valueable info to know since I'd like to write an occasional "review"
    and I am not sure where to draw that line..  And... as time passes,
    does the definition of a "Spoiler" change?  After a movie has been
    out on video for a year or so, can you talk more freely about it?
    
    I woke up today and thought I wanted to ask a lot of questions.
    
    I guess this is directed at the moderator(s).
    
    Thanks,
    Steve
    

    
    	I would loosely define a spoiler as "any plot developments and
    	complications not discussed in the commercials".
    
    	However, mentioning a small tidbit of plot that you know isn't
    	going to give any secrets away is no big deal.
    
    	Deaths of major/minor characters are usually spoiler material,
    	unless they are discussed in the commercials or occur within
    	the 1st few minutes of the movie.
    
    	You get the picture ... probably.
    

What Shawn says (in .16). :-)

-- Nina, co-moderator

    I also pay attention to how the movie "sets the stage", so to speak. In
    the beginning of most movies, there's a lot of expository material
    that's meant to get revealed as quickly as possible so you can
    concentrate on the plot. Sometimes the movie actually has to go
    awkwardly out of its way to push this information on you. I think some
    of that material is safe to use to "set the stage" for a review. For
    example, would it be a spoiler to say "Hamlet encounters the ghost of
    his father, who informs him he was murdered by his own brother, who is
    now king and married to Hamlet's mother"? I don't think so. The play
    "Hamlet" is not about that revelation, but about how he reacts to that
    revelation.
    
    People who want to know absolutely nothing about a movie, don't read
    reviews. We've even had complaints in here about brevity. "I liked it"
    or "I didn't like it" is an opinion, but not really a review.
    
    May I ask, since .15 suggests so, do the authors of .16 and and .17
    agree that I revealed too much in my review of "Powder" and should have
    put something behind a spoiler? I agree with .16 too, but actually feel
    that I have thus far exhibited a compatible instinct. I've entered a
    number of reviews and no one has complained until now, but if I'm
    out-of-line, it's best you speak up and correct my behavior before I
    spoil anything else.
    
    I just finished reading Ebert's review of "Powder". Compared to that, I
    was practically secretive!
    
    John

    Before .16 becomes an "accepted standard", let me speak
    up for those of us who are closer to the "People who want
    to know absolutely nothing about a movie" (and yet manage
    to see 40 movies a year in theatres :-).
    
    This is too broad a definition (.16):
    
    > I would loosely define a spoiler as "any plot developments
    > and complications not discussed in the commercials".
    
    I find that a lot of commercials on television (and trailers
    in theatres) give away WAY too much of a movie's plot, dialogue,
    and surprises.  I don't watch them (mute switch; good time to
    go for popcorn).
    
    Also (.18):
    
    > I just finished reading Ebert's review of "Powder".
    > Compared to that, I was practically secretive!
    
    Undoubtedly true.  Siskel & Ebert give away WAY too much also.
    I tape their program and fast-forward over specifics, skipping
    to their generalizations and impressions of the movie.
    
    But "absolutely nothing about a movie"?  No.  A "small tidbit",
    things that happen in the first few minutes, impressions of
    the gore, acting, script, thumb up/down, how it compares to
    other movies of similar subject, other roles by the actors,
    music, etc. -- these are all great things to bring up.
    
    Just don't let "commercials" or "what Roger said" be the
    standard.  Spoiler warnings, form-feeds, strings of carriage
    returns -- small price to pay.  Maybe we can err on the side
    of caution:  once read, you can't "take back" a spoiler.
    
    			dick

    re: .18
    John,
    
    I Liked your review (of Powder) a lot. It was right on target. I 
    was not complaining and hope I didn't come across that way.  I just 
    used it as a "sample" of what a spoiler may be.  I see that public
    opinion feels it was not. Now I have somewhere to draw a line in
    the future when I may wish to review something.
    
    Thanks,
    Steve
    

.19>    I find that a lot of commercials on television (and trailers
.19>    in theatres) give away WAY too much of a movie's plot, dialogue,
.19>    and surprises.  I don't watch them (mute switch; good time to
.19>    go for popcorn).

I suspect that more people watch commercials and trailers than not; however,
this is a good point.  On the other hand, if we can't discuss what's appeared
in them, we'll be pretty hobbled, methinks.  Maybe such discussions should
be prefaced with kind of a "mini-spoiler" warning ("Don't read this if you
haven't seen the trailers/commercials" or something).

I personally didn't find the "Powder" note to be much of a spoiler (though
it contained a lot of info I didn't know); however, a recent "Copycat" note
came closer to a spoiler for me...

-- Nina (moderator hat partly on :-) )

    >     People who want to know absolutely nothing about a movie, don't read
    > reviews. 
    
    Yep, I'm one of those. When "Return of the Jedi" came out after three
    years of waiting, I was so eager to see it that I paid $25 to go to a
    charity event that enabled me to see it one day early. At that time,
    some tabloid got hold of the script, and printed the entire plot two
    weeks early. My friends read it, and teased me by dropping hints until
    I threatened them with irreversible bodily harm. Most of the fun of
    seeing the movie the first time is watching the plot unfold.
    
    Last weekend I took my 1-year-old to Zany Brainy. There is a little
    viewing area there, and the video they were showing had a long preview
    for Toy Story. Since I had heard enough to know that this is an
    absolute must-see, I wanted to know nothing else about it until I was
    settled into a theatre seat with my popcorn--but I *couldn't escape*
    because Emma was enthralled with a toy and I had to stay with her.
    Arrgh!!!
    
    However, I realize that not everyone shares my idiosyncracy, so I read
    like movie reviews and this notes file with caution. Most reviews
    become progressively more revealing as you read onward, so I can
    usually bail out before hitting what I consider a "spoiler".
    
    Remarks like "Fascinating costumes", "very convincing acting",
    "wonderful scenery" are good for non-spoiler reviews. When in doubt,
    you can always term something a "possible spoiler" or "minor spoiler".
    
    				Jim