The Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes trailer is another one guilty of showing too much. I skipped the film and read the plot on wikipedia to see if I am missing anything. The answer was no.

WTF does it mean "with a spoiler carefully embedded in the actual text, as if Chekhov himself had given away the end."

Uh, I think that pretty much makes all your data invalid UC San Diego. Was this their John Muir school? Study outdoors and barefoot more.

Idiots.

If it is embedded in the text to look like ACTUAL TEXT -- then the reader ASSUMES IT IS ACTUAL TEXT THAT THE AUTHOR INTENDED TO BE THERE!!!

Spoilers are someone saying -- "Hey, college co-ed. In The Lottery, they all stone the main character at the very end."

You know like QUARANTINE showing the very last shot of the movie in their trailer. Hell, it's even the cover of the DVD.

That fucking pisses me off! Almost as much as this "scientific study" does.

I liked PARANORMAL ACTIVITY a lot. But I spent the entire movie waiting for the body to be flung across the screen like I saw in the trailer. The effect? Wasn't surprising at all. Was kinda a groaner actually.

But the best part -- SPOILER ALERT --

The chick being dragged down the hall. Didn't see that in the first run of trailers. Was surprised and scared as hell, not to mention it was a great special effect.

I don't want spoilers. I don't enjoy them EVEN IF I ENJOY THE MOVIE!

I'd be pissed as shit if someone robbed me of my first time seeing FIGHT CLUB.

The movie is a completely different flick after the first viewing. And I like that a lot about it.

Ugh. Still in rant mode.

Most good movie trailers show Act One and some fun bits from Act Two. Rarely do they ever show anything from Act Three.

Modern trailers tend to show everything. And every twist.

Compare this to trailers of a few decades ago.

ALIENS -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llmy2j9O6_4&feature=related

TRUE LIES -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPc-xIcl-_0

T2 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eajuMYNYtuY

Hmm -- compiling these James Cameron trailers I noticed something interesting.

They all exclude the "same" plot point(s). That would be the more personal conflict. Generally, the subplot. These story / plot points generally culminate near or at the end of Act Two and are not directly related to the larger overarching plot.

--SPOILERS--

Aliens -- Burke double crossing Ripley is excluded.

True Lies -- Helen's affair with Simon who she believes is a spy to spice up her love life.

T2 -- Sarah Conner's mission to kill Miles Dyson and prevent the future from ever occurring.

So -- let's see if Titanic and Avatar also fit this mold.

TITANIC -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCy5WQ9S4c0

Hmm. I'd say that pretty much gives everything away. There's two things you don't really know -- will they survive -- and what happened to the diamond?

Is it just me, or does this trailer feel much more expository than the previous 3? Oh, there's them framing Jack for the theft of the diamond. Check that plot point of your list.

AVATAR -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PSNL1qE6VY

There's something very interesting about this trailer. If you stop at 1:43 seconds when Jake opens his eyes as the avatar version of himself, you'd have a very 80s style James Cameron trailer.

Keep playing it from that point on and it gives away that "hidden" plot point in extreme detail.

It's really weird. You can literally see the division between giving everything away and teasing @ 1:43 in this trailer.

Scott,
What do you mean by "given the zero sum nature of my life"? Is this something they teach you at Yale?

I think audiences are smart. Writers know this and are adding double twists, or second endings, sometimes even releasing one twist in the trailer and then surprising audiences with the other.

I actually think those really smart movie watchers - the ones that already know what's going to happen and always let us know- are more vulnerable to these surprises because they are too caught up in their brilliant foreknowledge that they fall prey to the real surprise.

I suppose it depends on the story. Like James mentioned, Fight Club. Sixth Sense, Usual Suspects, all these probably shouldn't give away the big idea at the end. But for other movies, especially romantic comedies, we know what's going to happen. I loved 'Midnight in Paris' and the trailer pretty much gave the entire film away. By the middle you knew he was dropping that annoying wife and that he wouldn't be able to stay with Coltillard. Still loved it.

Why do kids always ask you to read the same story over and over? Why do we watch the same movies over and over? It's just a two-hour game of peek-a-boo, but we still love it.

I think well-calculated spoilers are part of stories and life and even if you know what is going to happen it is still a great journey. I just wish writers were more involved in the marketing side of things - I think there is room for more creativity in setting up these spoilers and trailers.

Whoa, just watched this "Juliet" trailer you embedded.

My gosh, has any trailer given away more? Is this the guiltiest trailer in history?

@Gabe -- Interesting. I actually think Midnight in Paris is an example of a trailer that doesn't show enough.

Could totally be wrong here -- but I think the hook and appeal of that film is where Owen Wilson's char is going at nights.

The trailers I've seen don't tell/show you.

To me, that's the hook. I'd give that away and tease the rest.

Putting this altogether as we converse -- the James Cameron 80s trailers give away the hook, but not the subplot. Midnight in Paris trailer does the exact opposite.

Hmm, I think I'm on to something here. lol

@Gabe: Zero-sum game per Wikipeda:

"a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Cutting a cake is zero-sum game, because taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others. In contrast, non-zero-sum describes a situation in which the interacting parties' aggregate gains and losses is either less than or more than zero. A zero-sum game is also called a strictly competitive game. Zero-sum games are most often solved with the minimax theorem which is closely related to linear programming duality, or with Nash equilibrium."

[Yes, that would "A Beautiful Mind" Nash].

My use of zero-sum game is that I have x amount of hours in my day. Let's say y = the shitload of things I have to do in my life. And let's say z = discretionary time. Any time I spend doing z detracts from my amount of time doing y which in turns reduces my ability to handle my shitload of things to do.

So when movies come out, I cull through them and determine which ones I can need to watch and which ones I'll simply read about in reviews, watch trailers, and what-not. That's basically me 'covering' movies ala a script reader's coverage.

Now here's an interesting situation. You would not normally think I would make screening "The Smurfs" a priority, right? Perhaps a few years ago when Luke was younger, he might have been interested in seeing the movie and I would justify the time as father-son time. But he has no interest.

So why am I going to see "The Smurfs" on Tuesday? Because I have a meeting with one of the movie's producers on Wednesday. The movie becomes a priority, moving from discretionary to requisite viewing.

I am still waiting for the gizmo from Apple that adds 12 hours to each day. When does that come out?

PHONEBOOTH -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p07lBCfC2q8

I always felt this trailer was actually better than the movie it was advertising.

I'll admit that there's one thing that isn't given away -- except for the fact that his voice is so recognizable.

@Gabe: I know, the "Juliet" trailer literally walks you through the entire movie. For purposes of 'covering' the movie, it's perfect.

The ironic thing, and this speaks to the point of that college study from the OP, is that marketing studies have shown that tweens and teenage girls like knowing the plot of the movies they are going to see, it actually generates more of a desire to see the movie. This is from an interview I conducted for GITS with a marketing exec at one of the big Hollywood studios:

Q: Pet peeve from GITS readers: Why do movie studios make trailer that give away so much of the plot of the movie they're promoting?

A: I can’t speak from experience as to why studios cut trailers that give away almost the entire plot of the movie as I’m not on the creative side. My best guess would be that the creative team is doing the best they can to hook the audience with the storyline. Unfortunately, sometimes they just give too much away. I do know almost every piece of creative is often tested among focus groups, and the people in those focus groups give their stamp of approval. So, while I imagine it must be frustrating from a screenwriter's point of view, the general audience really enjoys knowing the whole storyline.

You should read all five parts of that interview, it's quite an eyeopener. Here is Part 5. It has links to the other four parts.

@ Scott -- I think most people want to know what movie they are going to go see. I think they want to know the hook. What's interesting, new, and different about this movie than one's previous.

But I also think there is a fine line between setting up the story and giving everything away.

The opening line of the Aliens trailer is "Just tell me one thing, Burke... you're going out there to destroy them, right?"

Doesn't that line tell you everything you need to know?

Or True Lies -- intercutting spy espionage action with his wife at home on the phone mixing cake batter. Don't you understand what kind of story that is? What you are going to see? The tone and ride you are in for?

I honestly think trailers are dumbed down to the point that they think everyone is retarded. Look, at the Avatar trailer. It had us hooked -- and then was like: "Well, we're not sure you're really going to go see this movie, so here's the rest of it too."

Could be a reason film is losing a lot of youth revenue to videogames. Most videogames make you actually play them to get the payoff. Most movies you can simply watch the trailer.

Most people when they go on vacation plan out all their destinations. Let's go to Paris! We're gonna see the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre, Notre Dame, take a boat tour on the Seine, etc. That's what tourists do. They don't want any surprises.

Travelers on the other hand go to a new place and explore. They might have a general idea what to expect but they haven't planned out the entire trip. They want to be surprised.

Most people are tourists. Some of us are travelers.

Not sure if this relates to movies. Spoilers are ruining the experience for me, in many ways.

Why do moviegoers pick this or that movie?

Because they want to go on that journey. They want to "avatar;" to get into that character's skin without too much risk. That's where the roadmap (preview) comes in.

My first realization that trailers are capable of giving away too much and ruining what could've been an awesome !!! moment in the theater was the trailer for Star Wars Episide I The Phantom Menance.

You see Darth Maul, in all his badassery glory, activate his lightsaber... and then activate the SECOND BLADE!

Why waste this in the trailer? It's Star Wars. People have been waiting almost 30 years for the next big screen adventure, they were going regardless.

They ruined what could've been the coolest "Holy SHIT" moment since Vader revealed he was Luke's father. Could you imagine seeing that for the first time if it wasn't in the trailer?

Qui-Gon (still one of the coolest names since Han Solo) and Obi-Wan prepare to battle Darth Maul. They ready their lightsabers. The music swells. Darth Maul pulls out his lightsaber. The first red blade. And then -- the SECOND BLADE! Cue nerd-gasm.

Up until that point we didn't even dream a double-bladed lightsaber was possible, but I digress...

No, I do not like spoilers.