Trailer lawsuit

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by RevolverOcelScott

I got $3.17 or something close to that from the Red Bull lawsuit payout.

I just made $5.21 from a class action lawsuit against Experian for their mishandling of consumer data. It sounds like we're both working the system real good here.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Ok, then where's my share of that $50,000?! My outrage is now much less as my level of anger is directly proportional to my potential payoff.

They are probably printing up those 5 dollar Visa Gift Cards.

[dr. wai]

It amazes me that this is such a big issue now as this has been going on for as long as I can remember. Back in the 2000's, Dimension was notorious for shooting scenes that were only meant to be in a film's trailer to draw in more people. They did it with Highlander: Endgame and Black X-mas. I remember being really excited about these films and then being disappointed that the best scenes from the trailers were not in the films. Roger Corman used to do this stuff all the time too. He would have his trailer editors add things like explosions to trailers for films that didn't have explosions, just to add some excitement to the trailer. None of us thought to sue because we all knew that this was part of the business. You do whatever you can to get butts in seats.

We all know that trailers are more of a work-in-progress type thing than anything else. We know that some of the scenes or shots are not going to be in the film. You can't tell me that you weren't at least a little bit excited when they showed that last Avengers together shot at the end of the Infinity War trailer. I'll be you weren't disappointed when that shot wasn't what it was supposed to be in the film. Why? Because you know that trailers are there to sell us something and they needed a "money shot". We know this and are not offended when it happens. These people who are suing because their favorite actress wasn't in the film are just doing so because they saw it as a quick buck. All they had to was going to imdb and find out who is in the film. Anyone who thinks that trailers are not lying to you in this day and age are fools.

Also, what about teaser trailers? The Spider-man 2001 teaser was some criminals running from Spider-man, getting into a helicopter, ending with Spider-man catching the helicopter in a web in between the two towers. This scene was never meant to be in the film. It was there to drum up excitement. People are so easily butt-hurt over the smallest things nowadays. It is ruining the fun that films are supposed to be.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by dr. wai

It amazes me that this is such a big issue now as this has been going on for as long as I can remember. Back in the 2000's, Dimension was notorious for shooting scenes that were only meant to be in a film's trailer to draw in more people. They did it with Highlander: Endgame and Black X-mas. I remember being really excited about these films and then being disappointed that the best scenes from the trailers were not in the films. Roger Corman used to do this stuff all the time too. He would have his trailer editors add things like explosions to trailers for films that didn't have explosions, just to add some excitement to the trailer. None of us thought to sue because we all knew that this was part of the business. You do whatever you can to get butts in seats.

We all know that trailers are more of a work-in-progress type thing than anything else. We know that some of the scenes or shots are not going to be in the film. You can't tell me that you weren't at least a little bit excited when they showed that last Avengers together shot at the end of the Infinity War trailer. I'll be you weren't disappointed when that shot wasn't what it was supposed to be in the film. Why? Because you know that trailers are there to sell us something and they needed a "money shot". We know this and are not offended when it happens. These people who are suing because their favorite actress wasn't in the film are just doing so because they saw it as a quick buck. All they had to was going to imdb and find out who is in the film. Anyone who thinks that trailers are not lying to you in this day and age are fools.

Also, what about teaser trailers? The Spider-man 2001 teaser was some criminals running from Spider-man, getting into a helicopter, ending with Spider-man catching the helicopter in a web in between the two towers. This scene was never meant to be in the film. It was there to drum up excitement. People are so easily butt-hurt over the smallest things nowadays. It is ruining the fun that films are supposed to be.

This is not a new thing, ever here the term "Ambulance Chasers"
Could be a quick pay day, and at the least put the lawyers name out there. The problem in the process is the Judge is sometimes looking for the same thing, so will let anything go to discovery.

[chip75]

The Most Blatant Case Of Fraudulent Advertising Since My Suit Against The Film "The Neverending Story".

Meh. If studios start putting disclaimers on trailers, some of them will just become complete nonsense attempting to bring in audiences, much like video games used to be. At the moment they're somewhat honest with some deception. Think about how some are cut to link characters/scenes together when they're not.

They have, "This movie is not yet rated.", all they'd have to do is add, "This movie is not yet finished." or "May not be final product." and they've got licence to do anything.

[Mikezilla3k]

Originally Posted by dr. wai

Also, what about teaser trailers? The Spider-man 2001 teaser was some criminals running from Spider-man, getting into a helicopter, ending with Spider-man catching the helicopter in a web in between the two towers. This scene was never meant to be in the film. It was there to drum up excitement.

Wasn't it originally gonna be in the film though? And it only got removed because of 9/11 happening.

[Bubbles-11]

Imagine if this was filed when Kangaroo Jack was released..

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Trailers are advertisements, so if it's something that prompts someone to make a purchase, and that advertised thing isn't there, then it's false advertising. It doesn't matter if the people on here know how trailers work, it's still a valid enough claim. I'm sure Universal's lawyers will find plenty of precedence, and other legalese to get it ultimately dismissed though. I mean, if we want to get into slippery slope territory, if this small example of de Armas in the trailer gets dismissed, what's stopping a studio from just putting in a bunch of stars, and other crazy enticing scenes that aren't actually in the final product?

It reminds me of a Netflix documentary I watched recently called Pepsi, Where's My Jet? Where Pepsi advertised the possibility of getting a fighter jet with Pepsi reward points, with zero disclaimer in the commercial (which is completely idiotic) and some kid took that seriously. Pepsi offered the kid $1 million settlement at one point, but he turned it down. Ultimately it was dismissed by a judge who sides with corporations. Anyway, great documentary.

Only in America. Same reason why TV commercials for Red Bull containing their slogan "Red Bull gives you wings" which aired in Europe for years were altered in the USA adding a disclaimer explaining that Red Bull doesn't actually give you wings, because people are either too stupid or lacking in common sense to recognize an obvious joke or will act as if they are just to use the court system to make a quick buck.

[Scorpion Soldier]

Originally Posted by Mikezilla3k

Wasn't it originally gonna be in the film though? And it only got removed because of 9/11 happening.

The trailer footage was never meant to be part of the film. They did however remove several shots of the twin tower digitally from the film. The two things kind of got blended together over the years leading to outlets claiming it was meant to be in the film later on.

[Lee A Stewart]

There are other legal remedies available to the studios. The US District Court is not the highest court.

Add to that the amount of the suit: $5M and it may be appealed as a nusiance suit which a higher court would throw out.

[dr. wai]

Originally Posted by Mikezilla3k

Wasn't it originally gonna be in the film though? And it only got removed because of 9/11 happening.

I heard and read that it was created just for the trailer. I mean, it doesn't look like anything else in the film. It has a really cheap feel to it. It also doesn't look like anything Sam Raimi directed in the film proper

[RCRochester]

Can you imagine if these idiots were around when the Psycho trailer was released? But... but... what happened to all those scenes of Alfred Hitchcock touring the house?!?!

[Zivouhr]

If the Plaintiffs are asking for $5 million dollars because Ana De Armas was in the Yesterday trailer but not the actual movie, the judge might rule in their favor, but give back the cost of the rental and court costs, and not a dime more for this case of principal being overrun by pure greed of the Plaintiffs.

If they're awarded 5 million, who is to say everyone who has ever watched a trailer that didn't include a scene in the final film can't sue for $5 million for every single movie they complain about?

Yesterday - Deleted Scene with Ana de Armas - YouTube

Yesterday Trailer #1 (2019) | Movieclips Trailers - YouTube

[Benoit Blanc]

Court Rules That Studios Can Be Sued For Misleading Trailers - YouTube

[KManX89]

Source

The trailer for Danny Boyle’s Yesterday — a film where a musician wakes up in a world where no one remembers the Beatles — featured an appearance from actress Ana de Armas. The musician, played by Himesh Patel, serenades her with a Beatles song (that everyone thinks he wrote) during an appearance on The Late Late Show With James Corden.

That’s the trailer. But when the film came out, de Armas did not appear in the movie; her role had been cut out during post-production. (Supposedly, she was removed because test audiences did not want the Patel character to romance de Armas and preferred he remain faithful to Lily James’ character, who he knew before he became a world-famous, Beatles-music-stealing star.)

This sort of thing sometimes happens; movies get changed in editing. But some Ana de Armas fans were angry enough that they paid to see the film without realizing she had been removed that they sued Yesterday’s distributor, Universal. And this week, a judge said their case could proceed on the grounds that a trailer like this one may legally qualify as false advertising.

First of all, here is the trailer in question, which does indeed include several shots of de Armas.

According to Variety, Judge Stephen Wilson refused to throw out the suit, and found that movie trailers are subject to a California False Advertising Law, writing:

Universal is correct that trailers involve some creativity and editorial discretion, but this creativity does not outweigh the commercial nature of a trailer ... At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a movie by providing consumers with a preview of the movie.

The case will now move forward, and could prove costly not just for Universal but for other studios if it is eventually found in the favor of the plaintiffs. Trailers often sell potential customers a version of a film that is not strictly accurate or true. They might make something seem like more of a comedy when it’s in fact a darker and sadder drama, because executives think that makes the film more commercial. Or they might make a very famous actor who dies in the first 20 minutes look like they have a much more substantial role, to draw in their fans. And they do sometimes include appearances from actors, like in this Yesterday case, whose roles then get heavily reduced or removed entirely during the editing process.

If movie producers can be held liable for failing to deliver what their trailers promise, that might have major implications for how trailers are made in the future. But for now, the case is simply moving forward into another stage. You might just call this part a sneak preview of coming attractions.

I mean, there's certainly "grounds" for it. Halloween Ends marketing Wooden Plank Corey: the Movie as "Laurie v. Michael: the Final Showdown" should be a goddamn crime (maybe I'm being facetious here, but the point still stands ), but there's far too many minor things trailers can mislead you on (for good reason in some cases, i.e: so as to not be too spoilery, which far too many trailers these days are guilty of) for it to not be abused the hell out of.

[Mikezilla3k]

There was already a thread for this earlier.

Originally Posted by KManX89

I mean, there's certainly "grounds" for it. Halloween Ends marketing Wooden Plank Corey: the Movie as "Laurie v. Michael: the Final Showdown" should be a goddamn crime (maybe I'm being facetious here, but the point still stands )

There was still a final showdown between Laurie and Michael in the film bro. And Ends is still a hell of a lot better than both H20 and 2018.

[mwynn]

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=357829

[kylor]

Can't wait for Disney to get sued for that Artemis Fowl trailer then.

[KManX89]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Trailers are advertisements, so if it's something that prompts someone to make a purchase, and that advertised thing isn't there, then it's false advertising. It doesn't matter if the people on here know how trailers work, it's still a valid enough claim. I'm sure Universal's lawyers will find plenty of precedence, and other legalese to get it ultimately dismissed though. I mean, if we want to get into slippery slope territory, if this small example of de Armas in the trailer gets dismissed, what's stopping a studio from just putting in a bunch of stars, and other crazy enticing scenes that aren't actually in the final product?

It reminds me of a Netflix documentary I watched recently called Pepsi, Where's My Jet? Where Pepsi advertised the possibility of getting a fighter jet with Pepsi reward points, with zero disclaimer in the commercial (which is completely idiotic) and some kid took that seriously. Pepsi offered the kid $1 million settlement at one point, but he turned it down. Ultimately it was dismissed by a judge who sides with corporations. Anyway, great documentary.

I wonder how many people would still buy a ticket to Halloween Ends (day 1 streaming and all) if they knew

[Show spoiler]it wasn’t actually gonna be centered around “Laurie v. Michael for the last time, for realzies this time” and would instead focus on this random flat Corey character that her granddaughter somehow takes a liking to in the most contrived way possible despite having nothing going for him except a child murder accusation that turns him into a monster? Oh, and being beat up by a bunch of grade school band geeks

?

On the surface, it sounds stupid and an easily-abusable McGuffin that’ll potentially result in a plethora of frivolous lawsuits being filed, but maybe it’ll cause studios to rethink how they market certain trailers for the better. It might also avoid situations like this one in the future (this is borderline criminal). I’m not holding my breath, though.

[MifuneFan]

A simple disclaimer solves this. Put something in the tiniest text size at the end of a trailer and they're protected from any future litigation about false advertising.