Follow TV Tropes
In the British soap opera, East Enders, they spoiled the ending to Pixar's 'The Good Dinosaur' (the plot was used to help kids in the show come to terms with the death of their mother and aunt (ignoring complicated soap opera family relations), before the father realises that it was a bad example because they both drowned). East Enders and The Good Dinosaur have nothing really in common so I don't think its an example of Late Arrival Spoiler, but I'm also not sure it'd count as It Was His Sled as its too recent, and that's what caused the controversy. I thought it was an interesting example of one of the tropes, but don't really know what trope it'd come under.
Wait, would Crisis Core be this trope? I mean, the "Cloud isn't actually a SOLDIER" bit is. But would "Zack dies" bit be?
... Why on earth does this trope need examples, exactly? Normally I'm annoyed by all the YMMV tropes that had their example sections needlessly cut, but this is one of the least objective tropes on the site. Not to mention it's literally a big list of spoilers- anyone tempted to peruse this trope is accomplishing exactly what this trope warns against. (Please pretend there were more italics on emphasized words in this paragraph.) And as most of this discussion page can tell you, the examples are convoluted and confused anyways. Anyway, discuss.
I have to ask: Who are all these people reading the back covers of the next book in a series before they read the previous one, blissfully unaware that, in serialized storytelling, the new book is going to be based on, and make reference to, the events of the previous one?
The people who get mad at the publisher, and not themselves for taking the dumb action of SEEKING OUT INFORMATION ON A FUTURE INSTALLMENT OF A SERIES, those are the people who worry me.
I was going to say that that was a fair question, but readers don't need to be "blissfully unaware" that later installments of a series will build on each other in order to — this is just off the top of my head — skim back-cover summaries and see if they're interested in the books as a whole. There is a difference between explicitly naming plot twists that have gone before and describing the story of the new book, although in that context, it may be more ambiguous as to who the burden is on than in commercials or other such media.
For Star Wars spoilers, I have heard of a neat idea for new viewers:
Watch Episode IV and V. Then watch I, II, III. Finally, wrap the whole thing up with Episode VI.
Ben Kenobi's revelation about Anakin Skywalker acts as a tagline for a flashback, you don't get *any* of the in-universe spoilers, and you can still get the happy ending at the end of the saga.
About the Slayers example: Are there really spoilers from official sources (trailers, merchandise), or did somebody just mistake the article for It Was His Sled? (It wasn't in this case, by the way - his sled, that is.)
Okay, this page confuses me greatly. As I understand it, the conceit is that advertisements or reviews for sequels, remakes, or even just for the thing itself spoil the contents of the story. But I'm seeing a lot of cases that don't seem to make sense, like how it can be possible for unreasonable spoilers to exist WITHIN THE STORY. Like the Harry Potter entry, for example. It talks about how the books 'miraculously' avoid spoiling that Qurril is evil, or that Peter Pettigrew is Wormtail. How are these spoilers? If you're reading the fourth book, I highly doubt it's unreasonable to assume you've already read the first three. To do otherwise would completely destroy the point of a continuing story. Am I missing the point here, or am I justified in believing this article is in dire need of a cleanup?
The way the Harry Potter series can fit in this trope is pretty... tricky. The choice lies in jumping head-first into the series through the books or the movies. Similar to the Final Fantasy VII/Crisis Core entry under video games, it's more accurate to say that the 2 mediums spoil each other. Whether the new fan decides to read the books first or watch all the movies first, they will spoil the events of whatever medium they didn't pick to go through first in the end.
And I had the same understanding as you, where I doubt anyone would read one book but not read the ones that came before it. Naturally, if someone had the time and patience to read through the door stopper of a fifth book, they would have the time and patience to read through one to four. Now that I think about it, it's really about as to ''how' a fan approaches the series in terms of late arrival spoilers. If anything, a fan can avoid the Late-Arrival Spoiler by watching the movie that is paired with the book instead of finishing one medium before moving onto the next. And avoiding merchandize and advertisements (and the Fandom) at the same time.
It is your fault for not being aware.
No, really, IT IS YOUR FAULT for not being aware.
So I don't think anyone who has ever added You Should Know This Already to a page has ever clicked on the damn link and came to the article. I'm glad we renamed it, but it's still sticking around encouraging Fan Myopia, so I'm going to clear out all the links and then request the redirect be cutlisted.
I'm relieved to hear the Venture Bros guys do that, I was worried someone would catch wind that Toby Huss blabbed a future plot point about General Treister during his appearance on Doc Mock's Movie Mausoleum, and he'd get in trouble.. but it'd be the pot calling the kettle black.
The sixth paragraph and seventh... line... don't feel right. I edited the "out of respect those [sic] who want to approach them unspoiled forever" part, since that seemed needlessly dismissive, but I don't even get what the sixth paragraph is talking about. This page isn't (primarily) about seeing or reading the sequels first, in which case there really is no excuse. That much shouldn't even be an issue for the story's writer. What's it getting at?
Darned if I know. The paragraphs you mention just looked like nonsense words to me, describing phenomena that could only happen in a bizarre Real Life Eigen Plot. The page is better off without them.
The quote that was recently added to the page from Friends doesn't seem to match what this trope is about. The quote isn't a case of somebody having a major plot point spoiled by merchendising or advertising for a later season/sequal. Should it be removed?
It sounds like someone misinterpreted the title again. Go ahead.
Spoiler Alert: He was a ghost the whole time!
Really, why is there no mention of the Sixth Sense? It is the best and most obvious example of this trope!
It Was His Sled
Is it me, or should we not include characters coming back from the dead who obviously have Plot Immunity. For example the spoilers about Jack Bauer faking his death or Michael Weston in Burn Notice. It's very obvious that these shows wouldn't go on without their lead characters, so why should it be a surprise that they aren't dead.
I see we've got another example of "The name wasn't broken, but we 'fixed' it anyway."
Agreed. I never remember the rename of this.
I wasn't privy to the discussion, but I would assume that it had something to do with many people taking "You Should Know This Already" and using it as a "this plot development is pretty much common knowledge, so you can't complain if I spoil it". It got on my nerves, anyway.
Yes, that's exactly why the vote on the name change came about. "You should know this already" by name indicated something closer to "It was his sled" instead of what the trope is really about.
I'm activly trying to avoid Late Arrival Spoilers personally. I've only now started watching How I Met Your Mother from the beginning and are trying my hardest to avoid summaries and discussion of the later parts of the series. That includes advertising for the later seasons.
Is it me, or do a lot of examples have this confused with It Was His Sled or Trailers Always Spoil?
Pretty much. Not only that, but some of these examples are just plain dubious. Can the content of a blatant nostalgia title, prequel to a 10 year old game, or the 14th port/remake of a 20 year old game really be spoiled? And I say this as a hardcore spoilerphobe.
I don't know, you'd have to elaborate. It sounds like a possibility to me. I'm just wondering if that Bionicle example is really an example, or someone misinterpreting "You Should Know This Already".
EDIT: Sounds like that's a "yes". Cutting it.
Plus, the fact that a lot of the examples in Video Games are stuff like "In the sequel to the game, they reference the events of the previous game in the game itself". Seriously, if it's not on the back cover, you don't have anybody to blame except for yourself (who's apparently playing games out of order but still doesn't want any spoilers).
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?