Nick Leshi wrote a post recently asking, Are professional critics becoming extinct? The question is not new. Others have asked it. But it's something I've been meaning to write about.

But first let me back up and remark on another movie-related issue: Previews. It's bothered me for quite some time that movie trailers have gotten longer and have revealed ever more details. In my opinion, they give away too much of the movie. It often seems like I'm seeing the whole movie—or maybe just all the good parts.

Sometimes they have the courtesy to rearrange the scenes as they're spoiling things. In such cases, I frequently find myself quietly predicting they're going to end up with the tag line “See it again in the right order!”

Usually, if I think the movie even might be something that interests me, I just cover my eyes and try not to listen. It's sad to have to pay to sit there in a big-screen theater with my fingers in my ears and my eyes shut tight. Offensive, really. I don't think “they” should be allowed to spoil the movie that way.

A few years ago, I wondered why it would be in their interest to do this, and someone offered me an answer. I don't know how authoritative it was, but it sounded plausible. It was suggested that people no longer trust reviewers, that everyone has different taste. And so, it was alleged, people would rather see a miniature version of the movie, so they can decide for themselves if they want to see the whole thing. That, I was told, is why there's no more need of professional critics—not that amateur criticism is substituting, but that people want a self-serve approach to movie critique.

It's possible, I suppose. For me it comes at too high a cost in terms of spoiled plot. I simply don't think they should be allowed to do it.

I have to admit my kneejerk reaction is usually to suggest the death penalty, but I hasten to point out that's just hyperbole. I have to point that out because it's becoming all too routine for political rhetoric to include brazen calls for extreme acts that I would have once thought would always be off-limits. Increasingly, I think the people making these calls are serious, and sadly this robs me of the ability to make jokes in that space. So I'll have to grab at something a bit less extreme, just to set a good example.

I thought maybe a really big fine would suffice, but then I hit on it: a tax. It's said you should tax the things you don't want people to do. And, anyway, everyone likes a good tax, right?

Plus, this would be a sin tax—the best kind. After all, it's clearly a sin to expose the plot of a movie to someone who hasn't yet seen it. Well, even if you don't agree with that part, it doesn't matter. Sin taxes are like that. Only the person proposing them has to agree. And, indeed, it's not the kind of behavior I think the maker of a good movie should be engaging in. So that clarifies that. I agree—a sin it is, and a tax sounds like a good way of handling it.

Now, I suggest the tax could work this way: Take the latest scene that is shown in the previews and find how many minutes it occurs in the real movie. Subtract 30, since previews that come from the first half hour are probably from the setup, and that seems fair. If the resulting number is positive, multiply by 0.5% and that's the amount of tax you have to pay on the net proceeds from your movie. Show me a scene from 45 minutes into the movie? Pay a 7.5% tax. Show me a scene from an hour in, pay a 15% tax. Show me something two hours in? Pay a 45% tax.

That still leaves individual free choice for people who insist on the behavior, but an economic incentive for them to stop spoiling my movie. And those who disagree with me can make up for it by helping to pay off the national debt. Never let it be said that I don't seek out compromise.

If this approach is successful, expect me to try a similar plan to keep people from advertising a movie that isn't open. It's bad enough when it says “Opening this Friday,” though maybe a small grace period for advance advertising is ok. But opening half a year away? A year away? Two years away? I don't need to know about movies that far away. Who says we're even going to survive that long? Have these people not heard about the problems with our health care system? How about Climate Change? Let's keep our timelines realistic, shall we?