.
Last edited:
Movie studios can be sued under false advertising laws if they release deceptive movie trailers
- Thread starter Analyzer
- Start date
Can Paramount be sued for lying that a character was NOT in a movie????
J.J. Abrams admits lying about Star Trek 2's Khan was a mistake
J.J. Abrams admits lying about Star Trek 2's Khan was a mistake
No.1 on this the list being this one:Can I sue if they advertise it as a good movie and it actually sucks when I see it??
I have a list of titles I have assembled for just such an opportunity.
You see? Dreams really do come true…
Exactly...and let's not forget this little bait and switch by JJ...
"Hey, let's get the band back together, i know you guys haven't been together since 1983 but how about this idea...We will feature you, Mark in all the advertisements and give you 30 sec of actual screentime knowing we are sending lifesized cardboard cutouts to every walmart from here to China for promotion, not have any of you together in any scenes, and kill off Han so you'll never be reunited and just reformat ANH? Sound good? The fans will just eat it up."
drusselmeyer
Master Member
What can I say to that?!
Yeah, that's what really needs curbing. The habit of intentionally shooting stuff just for trailers.
Decades ago they were already doing the occasional dialogue line with trailers in mind. But lately it's been getting worse as these event-films get bigger and the marketing becomes more evolved. It was inevitable that the studios were going to press their luck farther. And the inevitable result is this legal crackdown.
Drawback:
If this gets enforced too literally then it may cause filmmakers to firm-up their editing decisions much earlier in the process for trailers. That could cause side effects. We might start seeing occasional ill-fitting shots in movies because of it. They used the shot in a trailer 6 months earlier and that legally locked it into the final cut.
I wonder who will be the first to get the bright idea to use the credits as a work-around. Hey, if a shot was played during the end credits, that means it was technically in the movie, right?
I hope this only means they will curb the worst excesses (of misleading things in trailers) and it won't turn into legal nitpicking. "You showed that shot for 17 frames in the trailer but only 14 frames in the final cut."
Decades ago they were already doing the occasional dialogue line with trailers in mind. But lately it's been getting worse as these event-films get bigger and the marketing becomes more evolved. It was inevitable that the studios were going to press their luck farther. And the inevitable result is this legal crackdown.
Drawback:
If this gets enforced too literally then it may cause filmmakers to firm-up their editing decisions much earlier in the process for trailers. That could cause side effects. We might start seeing occasional ill-fitting shots in movies because of it. They used the shot in a trailer 6 months earlier and that legally locked it into the final cut.
I wonder who will be the first to get the bright idea to use the credits as a work-around. Hey, if a shot was played during the end credits, that means it was technically in the movie, right?
I hope this only means they will curb the worst excesses (of misleading things in trailers) and it won't turn into legal nitpicking. "You showed that shot for 17 frames in the trailer but only 14 frames in the final cut."
modelcitizen
Sr Member
A higher court will just overrule this numbnuts judge. No worries.
I have seen the future…
JediMichael
Master Member
When I worked at the theater, if people watched maybe 30 mins or less and came out saying they just didn't like the movie, management would let them either pick another movie, or give their money back.Can I sue if they advertise it as a good movie and it actually sucks when I see it??
I have a list of titles I have assembled for just such an opportunity.
You see? Dreams really do come true…
joberg
Legendary Member
Is a work of Art/Literature can be equated with any other product? If I buy 5lbs of meat, I expect to see the scale showing 5lbs.
I know that a lot of people are offended these days, but really
So what; there's a TIE in the trailer, but not in the main feature...and because of that; your entire movie viewing experience was spoiled?
Frivolous suits at best I rest my case your Honor!
I know that a lot of people are offended these days, but really
So what; there's a TIE in the trailer, but not in the main feature...and because of that; your entire movie viewing experience was spoiled?Frivolous suits at best
I rest my case your Honor!
cboath
Master Member
I think this is skewing off the actual case.
The case is because these guys watched something because they are a fan of an actress who was in the trailer, but cut from the final product. They are claiming false advertising because that person isn't there. I think ultimately the case comes down to was it meant to deceive or was it a decision made in the best interest of the movie. This judge ruled the case can proceed, not that he found them guilty and/or liable. All the studio likely has to do is produce some email showing the character confused things or tested poorly and that's why she got cut.
I'd think the level required to prove intent here is going to be nearly impossible. I think the best the plaintiffs can hope for is discovery shows they made the decision to cut her way before the trailer was released and they didn't remove the trailer. I'd think if they were advertising the DVD with characters they knew weren't in the film, they may have an issue, but even at that - they don't put out trailers to get you to rent a DVD (which is what they did), they sometimes do to get you to buy it though.
The case is because these guys watched something because they are a fan of an actress who was in the trailer, but cut from the final product. They are claiming false advertising because that person isn't there. I think ultimately the case comes down to was it meant to deceive or was it a decision made in the best interest of the movie. This judge ruled the case can proceed, not that he found them guilty and/or liable. All the studio likely has to do is produce some email showing the character confused things or tested poorly and that's why she got cut.
I'd think the level required to prove intent here is going to be nearly impossible. I think the best the plaintiffs can hope for is discovery shows they made the decision to cut her way before the trailer was released and they didn't remove the trailer. I'd think if they were advertising the DVD with characters they knew weren't in the film, they may have an issue, but even at that - they don't put out trailers to get you to rent a DVD (which is what they did), they sometimes do to get you to buy it though.
CB2001
Master Member
It’s not the first time this has happened. There was someone who sued the makers of the film Drive (2011) because the trailer made the film look like a fast pace action film akin to The Fast and The Furious films, but it was a slow-burn drama thriller with some minor action scenes.
Bigdaddy
Master Member
What was the result?
CB2001
Master Member
I don’t know. I just googled it and the last update on it was in 2017 (it stating that the lawsuit went on for five years at that point) and it says that the corporate lawyers filed for one final dismissal and that both parties were waiting for it to end. Nothing about any results posted.
Bigdaddy
Master Member
modelcitizen
Sr Member
So the title of this thread is false advertisement to begin with. See the problem with taking bs and rumor as fact? Lol.
I demand compensation!
Emotional distress....
I demand compensation!
Emotional distress....
Riceball
Master Member
Having recently just finished being part of a jury for a lawsuit involving an apartment complex trying to kick out a tenant that hadn't paid their rent in several months, I would say that even if you can sue I wouldn't bother, it's not worth the time and effort for a movie ticket. I don't know about other states but here in CA the wheels of justice move slowly. It took 7 working days for the case to work itself out but it was waiting to go to court for months. Jury selection alone took 2 1/2 days and most days except for my first and last couple of days we didn't have to into court until 1:30 in the afternoon. Would you really want to spend a week or more just over the cost of a movie ticket?
Similar threads
