Movie studios can be sued under false advertising laws if they release deceptive movie trailers, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

[Jay 37,346]

https://variety.com/2022/film/news/ana-de-armas-yesterday-false-advertising-1235467419

 

lol

 

The plaintiffs, Conor Woulfe of Maryland and Peter Michael Rosza of San Diego County, Calif., each paid $3.99 to rent “Yesterday” on Amazon Prime. They are seeking at least $5 million as representatives of a class of movie customers.

[Bespin 8,480]

US American judiciary system at his best!

[JNHFan2000 2,957]

This is hilarious. Honestly. How sad are you if you sue a studio because of this?

 

So many trailers these days have shots that are not/different than in the film. Amd the amount of money that they're asking is insane. Just because you didn't see Ana De Armas, go watch another film.

[1977 1,743]

They should rather sue the studios for rebooting/modernising/suckifying great films that don't need to be.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,513]

If you rent YESTERDAY, you get what you deserve.

[Jay 37,346]

A shadow hanging over me?

[TSMefford 1,509]

This is absolutely ridiculous lol. Very interested to see how this case turns out - can't imagine it will go well for our Ana De Armas superfans.

[Mr. Who 919]

Why not just watch another movie with Ana DeArmas?

[Brundlefly 2,385]

Another step towards the death of art by law - when you're not allowed to trick people into movies that are something they didn't expect and didn't want to deal with, you can go fuck everything.

[Edmilson 7,432]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Who said:

Why not just watch another movie with Ana DeArmas?

They don't have Beatles songs.

[Glóin the Dark 1,220]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Who said:

Why not just watch another movie with Ana DeArmas?

 

Because we like totally different things. There's always an argument.

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

Then I definitely want my money back for what was claimed to be The Neverending Story, which actually only lasted a couple hours.

 

Scam.

[Bellosh 3,408]

Wish we could sue over shitty epic trailer music though.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Reminds me of all those people who went to see Sweeney Todd not knowing it was a musical. That was entirely the fault of the marketing department of course - most of the trailers didn't feature any singing, but good lord did they complain.

[Edmilson 7,432]

50 minutes ago, Bellosh said:

Wish we could sue over shitty epic trailer music though.

Epic trailer music may be shitty, but it has been serving as an inspiration for the actual film scores for the good part of the last decade.

[Tom 4,651]

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Then I definitely want my money back for what was claimed to be The Neverending Story, which actually only lasted a couple hours.

 

Scam.

And Avatar never ends.  

[TolkienSS 407]

Good thing.

Saying trailers are "artistic expression" and not literal ads for movies is cringe. Studios don't put out trailers for "artistic expression", they want to lure people into spending cash, nothing else.

 

This isn't about making a movie look better than it actually is, it's about them putting stuff in a trailer that they know won't be in the film, for the purpose of luring people into buying something they know they can't give them.

[Groovygoth666 663]

1 hour ago, TolkienSS said:

This isn't about making a movie look better than it actually is, it's about them putting stuff in a trailer that they know won't be in the film, for the purpose of luring people into buying something they know they can't give them.

The thing is how trailers are made. Usually either a small amount of footage or an early cut of a film is handed over to a different company to make a trailer, with the director or producers having little say in what's used. The only studio that seems to go out of their way to be deceptive is Marvel. As far as footage being in trailers that weren't in the film, this isn't anything new either, go look at the trailers for Ghostbusters or Home Alone and you'll find stuff that wasn't in the final cut. 

 

In this particular case though, watching the trailer, Ana De Armas is only in the James Corden scenes, so to watch this film expecting her to be a major part is lost on me. The trailer isn't selling her as being integral to the plot or overall story. Just that when the main character is on the late late show with James Corden, she's there. If the only reason the plaintiffs watched this film based solely on those few minutes of footage and didn't get what they expected they are certainly in their right to demand a refund, but $5 million for false advertising is absurd.

 

[TSMefford 1,509]

49 minutes ago, Groovygoth666 said:

The thing is how trailers are made. Usually either a small amount of footage or an early cut of a film is handed over to a different company to make a trailer, with the director or producers having little say in what's used. The only studio that seems to go out of their way to be deceptive is Marvel. As far as footage being in trailers that weren't in the film, this isn't anything new either, go look at the trailers for Ghostbusters or Home Alone and you'll find stuff that wasn't in the final cut. 

 

In this particular case though, watching the trailer, Ana De Armas is only in the James Corden scenes, so to watch this film expecting her to be a major part is lost on me. The trailer isn't selling her as being integral to the plot or overall story. Just that when the main character is on the late late show with James Corden, she's there. If the only reason the plaintiffs watched this film based solely on those few minutes of footage and didn't get what they expected they are certainly in their right to demand a refund, but $5 million for false advertising is absurd.

 

 

Yes exactly. All this. Anyone who thinks the studio deliberately included Ana De Armas in the trailer is very naïve.

If it goes further, perhaps we'll know more specifically the timeline, but we simply do not know when exactly the test screening occurred that resulted in De Armas' scenes being removed. 

 

I would bet - knowing how trailers and advertising presently works in the industry, that they're produced before a finished "final cut" of the film is completed - the trailer house who produced the trailer had a cut of the film to work with that included her scene(s).

That means that by the time the decision was made, the trailer was out and this is the internet - you can't un-ring that bell or put the genie back in the bottle.

 

How it should be done in the future in another matter entirely. 

The only way to avoid this situation with Yesterday - a presently presumed unintentional mislead by cutting De Armas likely after the trailers release, would be to have a complete film before the marketing is produced.

I'm not saying that's what should happen, but it's the only to avoid a situation like this entirely.

I guess the alternative would be to put out a press release that she was cut from the film, but that won't get in front of nearly as many eyes as the trailer did. 

Or perhaps a home video trailer that did not include these shots should've been produced and shown next to the rental page?

But I'm sure the studio didn't want to pay someone to cut a new trailer if they felt the one they had was good enough.

 

Regardless, unless these clowns can prove that this was an intentional mislead by the studio - I really don't see anything remotely impactful coming of this.

Her segment in the trailer is also not substantial. The reasonable person would assume that she had a large part in the film. Bit actors are included in trailers all the time.

Like I said before - the whole thing is ridiculous.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[MrJosh 892]

Now I can move forward with my lawsuit against Disney for those trailers of The Rise of Skywalker teasing me with Duel of the Fates! What false advertising! I'd say a cool 10 million should make it right. 

[Groovygoth666 663]

Just now, MrJosh said:

Now I can move forward with my lawsuit against Disney for those trailers of The Rise of Skywalker teasing me with Duel of the Fates! What false advertising! I'd say a cool 10 million should make it right. 

Why not add Rogue One as more proof and get more money 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,513]

5 hours ago, Bellosh said:

Wish we could sue over shitty epic trailer music though.

Geez! If we all did that, there would be no money left, in the world.

I'd be more likely to complain about what was in the film, rather than what was left out of it.

[Thor 7,492]

LOL! Only in America!

 

This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer sues the coffee company for having too hot coffee, after he spills it all over himself in the cinema.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Guaranteed the judge in this case is still mad about having been tricked by the trailer into seeing mother! a few years ago.

[MedigoScan 324]

2 hours ago, Thor said:

LOL! Only in America!

 

This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer sues the coffee company for having too hot coffee, after he spills it all over himself in the cinema.

 

The actual case that inspired all the later memes was actually not as frivolous as one would think.

[Giftheck 916]

Imagine using this to try and sue Marvel because they didn't include the other two Spider-Men in the trailer or even edited them out of shots they were in, or Paramount because of the Khan twist in STID, or...

 

Where does it end?

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

10 hours ago, TolkienSS said:

Studios don't put out trailers for "artistic expression", they want to lure people into spending cash, nothing else.

 

Well, OK. But for that matter ultimately they don't put out films for "artistic expression" either, it's about getting people to spend their cash. Something can have both a commercial and artistic purpose, the two certainly aren't mutually exclusive.

 

The judge's ruling only means the lawsuit can proceed, not necessarily that the plaintiff's will prevail. 

[scallenger 483]

I still see it as a bit of false advertising to have things in trailers that aren't in the final product. It has ALWAYS bothered me. While I know it's really not done on purpose for all the reasons people said, I still think it is false advertising nonetheless.

 

For example, when Jurassic World: Dominion came out, even during the week of release, they kept showing the footage of the T-Rex roaring at the drive-in during an attack sequence. The entire scene was not in the theatrical film, which is what it was advertising for specifically. This isn't some Carl's Jr. Ad where it is advertising the burger more than the movie; its solely showing you "this is the movie". Only it's not an accurate portrayal if you are showing things not in it. So, it's false advertising.

 

I am not saying it's worth suing millions of dollars over. But it has been a problem for a long time. Most people I don't think appreciate being false advertised with other things. Yeah, movies aren't cars. But trick enough people and you're still making millions of them collectively. I will agree though that the only people seemingly doing this on purpose is Marvel. If they don't want to spoil things in their trailers, there is a real easy solution: just don't show it.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,513]

I'm considering suing Lucasfilm for tricking me into thinking that INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, and THE RISE OF SKYWALKER were, actually, good films, rather than huge steaming turds.

[Luke Skywalker 1,794]

I wanted to see jyn erso firing her bladter to the TIE fighter!

[TSMefford 1,509]

7 hours ago, scallenger said:

I still see it as a bit of false advertising to have things in trailers that aren't in the final product. It has ALWAYS bothered me. While I know it's really not done on purpose for all the reasons people said, I still think it is false advertising nonetheless.

 

I will start by saying I absolutely disagree with you (please read on after my opinion though).

 

Here's my opinion:

Spoiler

I feel like false advertising has to include intent or willingness to deceive, but what do I know - I'm not a lawyer.

Quite frankly, in this case, an actor simply being in a film is not enough to sway my opinion on whether or not I want to see it so I simply do not feel mislead by Ana De Armas' inclusion. 

I have actors I like seeing in things of course, but no actor is going to make or break a film for me - they're just another piece of the massive puzzle and could do a good or bad job depending on a number of factors.

If an actor had that much sway on my enjoyment of a film, then the film is simply not doing enough work.

 

Honestly, I've also grown past caring if there are scenes in the trailer that don't make it in either. What damage or harm does that do to me?

So what? I spent $3.99 to rent the movie or $20-30 to see it in a theater or buy it on Blu-Ray. I spend 2-3 hours watching it. So what?

There are way bigger fish to fry in the world of false advertising than some scene or actor being in a trailer and not in the final film, especially if it's unintentional. Marvel doesn't even bother me when they do it intentionally anymore.

 

I'm well aware that the trailer is not the film. It's a hype piece - it's gets you excited and it's a taste. The film will be different in many numbers of ways.

 

HOWEVER... Like I said - the only way to mitigate this issue whether purposefully malicious or not would be to require the film be entirely complete before starting the marketing process.

It does happen - don't films get bought by studios/distributors from festivals all the time in a complete or nearly complete form? I know sometimes the distributors request changes (like a new ending being added to the U.S. version of What If? (aka The F Word))

 

Personally, I wouldn't mind this necessarily. I think the entire film industry needs to slow the heck down and quit pumping so much crap out as fast as they can.

I know they do it to maximize how much money they make in a year, but it would be far more beneficial to the filmmakers and the crew to take their time. They can still have a deadline - but it can be private and more related to when the marketing needs to start. Plus, if VFX need more time then they can continue to improve as the marketing begins (I feel like this would've helped out Cats as far as VFX touch ups are concerned. But no amount of amazing VFX could save that film entirely.) as long as, of course the film doesn't change substantially.

 

Despite whatever analytics and research they rely on - you don't have to release Avatar 2 on December 16th in 2022, for example. 

But good luck getting Hollywood to change what they think works - It's clearly better to overwork film crews, rush out final products before they're realistically ready, and open as many films as possible in any given year.

I'm aware that filmmaking is a business, but it should be a bit more of a balance between business and art, in my opinion, and it's primarily business these days. 

 

*Gets down off soapbox*

[Naïve Old Fart 9,513]

I'm getting a class action together, 'cause there's a lot of people who were pissed that that leaf didn't appear, in JURASSIC PARK.

[Jurassic Shark 12,054]

On 23/12/2022 at 5:47 PM, TSMefford said:

I'm not a lawyer.

 

I absolutely disagree with you. 

[TSMefford 1,509]

39 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

I absolutely disagree with you. 

 

I disagree with your disagreement

[Giftheck 916]

But what if he then disagrees with your disagreement of his disagreement?

[Jurassic Shark 12,054]

I do.

[Groovygoth666 663]

Deadline are reporting (unsurprisingly) that this case has been dismissed.

[JNHFan2000 2,957]

Indeed, unsurprising

[Jurassic Shark 12,054]

I want my money back.