It’s why punching someone is remarkably dumb. Likely your punch won’t kill anyone but the fall it causes absolutely can.

“If she didn’t want to have sex with him, then why was she taking tequila shots and why did she go home with him? Do we even know what she was wearing? Surely we’re not going to ruin this fine young man’s life over 20 minutes of action, are we?”

Jesus Fucking Christ. THREE WHOLE DAYS??? You’re right—literally EVERYONE who cares about the movie (and not having anything spoiled for them) should have seen it by now! I mean, NO ONE has a family, or a job, and it’s not like Sunday was MOTHER’S DAY, where people may have decided to be social with one another rather…

The tone deaf response to the very valid reader comments is alarming. Very unlike the normally savvy content and indeed comments from you guys. I think that’s why people are so up in arms about this.

Well, we can’t flag your articles with spoileriffic headlines.

You guys need to stop and take a long, hard look at what you’re doing and who you’re doing it for. This is not okay.

You do see the problem though, right?

It’s sad you support people who post ambush spoilers.

Three days? Come on, man. You really think if people don’t see it opening weekend, then they’re shit out of luck? If it’s a television episode, fine - those are one hour and you can watch it at home whenever you feel like - but not a 2.5 hour movie on a weekend where it’s sold out in most theaters.

No, fuck you. Just do a simple tweak to the headline. Be a better writer.

No one has a problem with the article itself, Samer. The problem is the blatant spoiler in the TITLE, something that you don’t get to opt-out of seeing unless you don’t visit the site at all.

Do you really not understand the distinction between “talking about it” and posting a spoiler in a headline?

They aren’t mad about you talking about it. They’re mad about the headline. “you’ve had three days...” is a pretty weak counter to that.

I’m going to see the movie tonight (I was busy with work last weekend, bite me) and I was specifically wondering about whether they would kill one of the minor characters to add some real repercussion to having all good guys fight each other. The article is fine to write now and the title would be fine 3 weeks from…

No one is complaining about the article, they're complaining about the spoiler filled title. You're all supposedly professional writers, maybe come up with a sentence that doesn't spoil one aspect of a just released movie. And you say it's been out for 3 days like that's some excuse for not rushing out and immediately…

You can talk about it. Doesn’t mean you have to put the spoilers on the title. There are thousands of articles about the movie on the internet. And they have spoilers... but they’re smart enough to choose relevant titles.

Listen. I like The Concourse. It does some great things with film culture commentary. This article is not one of those things. If you guys want to troll, go play LoL.

You don’t even believe this. You hate that you guys did this. Just admit it, we’re all with you.

Yea I mean there’s no way he could make the title something like “My biggest complaint about Civil War” or “Civil war was great EXCEPT” or literally any other title that doesn’t have a spoiler in the title. Since, you know, some of us were busy this weekend and were planning on watching it tonight.

There is a difference between talking about it and posting right in the title that nobody dies. Even if there is no death, that in itself if a plot point. Going in KNOWING that there are no deaths removes that mystery. At least you’d have to think about the fights wondering, or when Roadie drops from the sky. Come on…

When does a deadspin writer kick the bucket? would really be a plot twist IMO.