Spoilt

So, I guess the big movie news right now is Star Trek: Into Darkness. A friend saw it and was so surprised to have liked it so much he texted me to tell right after it was over. I have seen some reports that it didn't make enough money in the opening weekend, and I have read some reviews, mostly from web-pals. Many of these reviews have "spoiler alert" warnings or visual landmarks to tag where you should stop reading if you don't want to know major plot points before you see the movie. I guess there is a pretty big deal to spoil in  ST:ID; it might even be a "reveal" a la Crying Game. That I know it exists at all, much less what it is, even though I haven't seen the movie, is not the result of my ignoring or missing spoiler alerts: it is the result of an article showing up on one of my aggregators that had PUT THE SPOILER RIGHT IN THE TITLE.

Now, I'm not a stickler for spoilers, and there is something a little tenuous about 'spoiling' the second movie in the reboot of a twenty-three-year-long film franchise based on a TV series that premiered forty-seven years ago. But I think that this particular plot point, if prematurely disclosed, might ruin some genuine delight on the part of some fans; since geek culture accepts spoiler-alerting as S.O.P. these days, I can't imagine why someone would PUT THE SPOILER RIGHT IN THE TITLE.

Personally, it's no skin off my back. I am not that invested in the Star Trek reboot, maybe because it seems like just another example of Hollywood youngifying everything. So I'm not racing to see it, although I probably will eventually, and I think knowing this bit of information won't affect my enjoyment much, if at all. It just seems really odd that someone would... do that.