Good Trailers vs. Bad Trailers

MaryAnn Johanson has the exact opposite reaction I did to the Sherlock Holmes trailer:

This is what a trailer should do: offer hints as to what's in store for the viewer without giving away the store. And here we have some slam-bang action, a dose of rowdy violence, a couple clues about the good-natured (and sometimes not) contentiousness between Holmes and Watson, and a few little suggestions that this is not quite Conan Doyle's Holmes (featuring Rachel McAdams in lacy Victorian underwear and Holmes in handcuffs). There's the merest implication that the plot will have something to do with a nefarious bad guy. Holmes devotees can guess that one unnamed character we see is probably LeStrade, Holmes' nemesis on the London police force. It's everything certain Holmes purists will need to know to know that they won't want to see this movie, without wrecking the experience for those of us who cannot freakin' wait.

--Good Trailers vs. Bad Trailers: Where Movie Marketers Go Wrong - Film.com

I guess that makes me a "certain Holmes purist." Of course, I'll see the movie anyway.

Her larger point is that a trailer should preview enough to help you decide if you'll like the movie, without giving away all surprises. Ha, such a naïve consumer perspective. Unfortunately, trailers that give away the best parts put more butts in seats. It's kind of like musicians giving away their best songs for free on the radio.