SHHH! No Spoilers!: How modern marketing insults filmgoers.

One of the biggest films of recent days to give away too much in its marketing is “Wonder Woman 1984” set to be released simultaneously on HBOMax and in theaters on Dec. 25.

Earlier this week, I was scrolling through YouTube looking at a video on Martin Scorsese when I saw that Warner Brothers, in preparation for “Wonder Woman 1984’s” Dec. 25 release, uploaded the first scene of the film and, just one hour after release, it had over 74,000 views.

This got me thinking about how the trailer for the film, despite being engaging, angered me by revealing that Wonder Woman’s (Gal Gadot) love interest Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) was alive despite him being killed in the first film.

And that got me thinking about how the trailer for “Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice” and how that essentially gave away the entire plot.

Unlike classic blockbusters like “Jaws,” “Star Wars” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” the marketing for today’s big moneymakers relies less on vague mystique and more on just spoon-feeding plot details to the public in hopes that they see the film.

The bizarre thing is that many of these films are guaranteed to make big money. If you look at the highest grossing films of 2019, they were all comic book, “Star Wars” or Disney films all of which would never bomb.

Ironically, the biggest disappointments in blockbuster markets were films, like “Justice League” and “Solo: A Star Wars Story,” that put too much money into the budget and then over-marketed themselves in hopes of recouping their losses.

While many who watch and love films make fun of studios for being out of touch with the public and modern filmmakers, the over-marketing of blockbusters, to the point where they give away important plot details, feels like studios are so desperate for their films to be noticed even though its not necessary.

Some blockbusters, like “Avengers: Endgame” and “Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker,” have people in marketing that know the power of anticipation. If you watch the trailers for both films, they are somewhat vague with a basic plot revealed but very few details. Honestly, the biggest reveal were the names of the films.

After “Avengers: Infinity War” and “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” left viewers wanting more, fans had to wait a year or more for the title alone. That kind of anticipation is what studios should focus on with their marketing.

In 2019, “Joker” had a modest budget and an average marketing campaign until the vast word-of-mouth campaign pushed the film to grossing over 1 billion dollars.

Another aspect of marketing that the digital age has both heightened and forgotten is good word-of-mouth advertising. One of the most profitable examples was 2019’s '“Joker” which, while based on comic books, was a disturbing character study about a man’s (Joaquin Phoenix) decent into violence and insanity as he becomes the Joker.

The film was also modestly budgeted, estimated between 50 and 70 million dollars, so it was unlikely that Warner Bros. was pushing really hard for it to make money compared to its other blockbusters.

However, the film’s content and violence was unjustly villified online by people on social media, bloggers, critics and journalists with many claiming that the content of the film, which is no worse than films like “Taxi Driver” or “Natural Born Killers,” was dangerous.

Even when the film won the Golden Bear at the Venice International Film Festival, all anyone could talk about was how disturbing the film was and how screenings of the film could be targets for mass shootings.

For those who never saw the film in theaters, I went to my local AMC on opening night and there was an armed security guard who looked at our IDs to make sure we were over 17-years-old and padded us down to make sure we had no weapons. Despite all of the controversy, not only did critics and audiences love the film, but there were no mass shootings at screenings.

In fact, all of the controversy that surrounded the film in the months before its wide release created such an interest in the film that it grossed over 1 billion dollars, becoming the first R-rated film to do so.

Another less controversial, but just as recent film, was “Knives Out” which actually had a standard marketing campaign with a trailer that was fun but didn’t give away anything. But upon release, people loved the film so much that they came back to see it and told their friends about it. Eventually, the film made over 300 million dollars against a budget of 40 million dollars.

When it comes to marketing films, studios should remember that what you show can be powerful, but what you don’t show can be even more alluring. Sometimes good star-power, a fun but vague trailer and a solid word-of-mouth campaign is all that is needed to make a profit.

Part of the solution to the over-simplification of films in their marketing relies on the power of filmgoers who have to let studios know with their words how films should be marketed.

However, it’s not just the fault of studios. Audiences have to take some responsibility for the way studios market films because of how inconsistent we are. Too often, just saying the title of a film like “Avengers: Endgame” not long after its release will release on onslaught of “NO SPOILERS” from fans. Fair enough, they don’t want the movie ruined for them.

But then we turn around and eat up trailers for “Wonder Woman 1984” even though they drop a massive spoiler. Revealing that Steve Trevor is alive is a big deal and, unless the filmmakers go in a different direction with this reveal, it seems like unnecessary hype for a film that not only is a sequel to one of 2017’s highest grossing films, but that fans want to see.

The way that modern blockbusters feels like we’re being talked down too like children. Actually, that isn’t the case because films marketed to families like “Frozen II,” “Onward” and “Soul” are actually marketed more vaguely than films meant for a more adult audience.

With 2020 changing everything in the way films are made and distributed, one aspect of the process, its marketing, unfortunately seems the same.