Movie studios can be sued under false advertising laws if they release deceptive movie trailers
- Thread starter Analyzer
- Start date
modelcitizen
Sr Member
Yep thread title's one big false statement...now i'm just having a bit of fun with it. As compense....
Bigdaddy
Master Member
If that's what it was about we'd be discussing a class action lawsuit.Well, I didn't pay to open this thread.
It isn't about one the cost person's movie ticket. It's about the cost of everyone's.
drusselmeyer
Master Member
Class action lawsuit:
Court costs get paid:$$$
Lawyers get paid:$$$$
Victims get the usual 25¢ check.
Court costs get paid:$$$
Lawyers get paid:$$$$
Victims get the usual 25¢ check.
Bloop
Sr Member
I believe the person who initially files the class action suit gets a much bigger cut than the rest of the people who sign on after the fact.
joberg
Legendary Member
Again...those poor bleeding hearts are crying crocodile tears (and suing) for what? When it comes to the core of that suit, it's not false ad.
If a director, or the studio suits, decide that one actor/actress, or a particular scene is not going to appear in the final cut, that's their artistic decision.
Trailers are, ultimately, tools in marketing a movie/artwork. If a client, commissioning a famous painter to paint a portrait of his family, discover at the official unveiling that one member is missing from the portrait, that would be ground for suing the artist.
He (the client) asked specifically for something precise!
You (the movie-goer) didn't have any say on the final product! Therefore; things can change between trailer and final cut. Period.
If a director, or the studio suits, decide that one actor/actress, or a particular scene is not going to appear in the final cut, that's their artistic decision.
Trailers are, ultimately, tools in marketing a movie/artwork. If a client, commissioning a famous painter to paint a portrait of his family, discover at the official unveiling that one member is missing from the portrait, that would be ground for suing the artist.He (the client) asked specifically for something precise!
You (the movie-goer) didn't have any say on the final product! Therefore; things can change between trailer and final cut. Period.
cboath
Master Member
NTAgain...those poor bleeding hearts are crying crocodile tears (and suing) for what? When it comes to the core of that suit, it's not false ad.
If a director, or the studio suits, decide that one actor/actress, or a particular scene is not going to appear in the final cut, that's their artistic decision.
He (the client) asked specifically for something precise!
You (the movie-goer) didn't have any say on the final product! Therefore; things can change between trailer and final cut. Period.
Last edited:
Ridiculous.
Maybe the dumbest thing I’ve read.
There should be a law that limits the whining that comes from people that watch movies these days.
You don’t like a movie, just shuttup and watch something else. I can’t wrap my head around people who see something they don’t like and then spend the next years letting it ruin their lives.
Now they wanna line lawyers pockets and spend time in court about it?
How bored are these people?
Maybe the dumbest thing I’ve read.
There should be a law that limits the whining that comes from people that watch movies these days.
You don’t like a movie, just shuttup and watch something else. I can’t wrap my head around people who see something they don’t like and then spend the next years letting it ruin their lives.
Now they wanna line lawyers pockets and spend time in court about it?
How bored are these people?
And it was a Friggin Great movie!That is amazing! 5 years of litigation because someone was disappointed in a movie.
drusselmeyer
Master Member
There are truth in advertising laws. If it says peas on the can, it is supposed to contain peas. Period.Again...those poor bleeding hearts are crying crocodile tears (and suing) for what? When it comes to the core of that suit, it's not false ad.
If a director, or the studio suits, decide that one actor/actress, or a particular scene is not going to appear in the final cut, that's their artistic decision.
He (the client) asked specifically for something precise!
You (the movie-goer) didn't have any say on the final product! Therefore; things can change between trailer and final cut. Period.
modelcitizen
Sr Member
Yeah well apples and oranges, carrots and peas, this aint gonna fly....
cboath
Master Member
Unless i'm missing something, it has nothing to do with like/dislike.
They were fans of an actress. Actress was in the trailer. Actress was not in the movie.
That is what their issue is.
For a $5 rental fee, i'm surprised a lawyer took the case - well, maybe not. There's simply more important things out there. I can't say studio's making trailers that feature people that turn out not to be in the final film is an actual problem that needs addressed with a court case. This is the first one i've heard of. I didn't see anything about this being a statement case either - as in, trying to stop studios from doing this.
While there are truth in advertising laws, does it really run afoul of them? For it to cross the line i think it would very much depend on timeline and if they used the trailer after they knew she was cut from the final product. If not, no case really. If so, they'll have a problem. Trailers will get a LOT shorter and won't get released until much later if they find that what they put in a trailer has to be in the final product.
Yeah the main issue is that a movie is a constantly changing beast… they shoot trailers with footage or a sequence not even in the movie like the Raimi Spiderman flick with the two towers… and even if that scene was in the movie, it woulda been cut out of the flick on final release anyway cuz of 911.
Then there’s final cuts that are two long so for show times they cut scenes that may have to take out an entire storyline or an Anna dearmas
Or cases where a test screening shows an audience hates an actor so they are cut last minute… or they get Kevin Spacey trouble and it’s reshot… or an overseas distributor wants stuff cut…
Or shots manipulated in the trailer to hide multiple spider men.
Sure there are instances where a POS is like “put that girl on the poster… I don’t care if she was cut”
And that’s scummy, but final cuts often aren’t done until a month before the film is dropped and so a trailer house having to start at that point would release a trailer day and date with the flick.
It just rings as childish. Someone who thinks they found a legal golden goose.
Rogue one has those shots cuz they needed to hype it while it was also being reshot… probably had no idea what movie they were even making at that first trailer
Indunno the whole thing feels like a 5 year old having a fit and it’s gonna result in text all over trailers like “closed set professional drivers do not attempt” “not real people, actors” “this scene may not be in Final Cut of film” “3D is an illusion, you can’t actually touch Anna DeArmas” “Pangea isn’t a real place”
And then do they get kicked into the sometimes ever moving release date tagged at the end… what if Timmy had his birthday planned around June 9th!? What about the music track featured in it that isn’t used in the movie?
A studio shouldn’t be held at legal gun point to deliver a movie that includes every instance from a trailer… a trailer and a movie are two different things… and often aren’t even cut by the studio making the movie.
Ramble ramble rant rant
ScourgiousJinx
Master Member
I can see this issue addressed by including a disclaimer during trailers. Something like "Performers and events depicted in this trailer may differ slightly from the final film."
cboath
Master Member
Oh i absolutely believe they did it because they found a loophole and think they can cash in.
You'd think the threshold for damages would be what it cost you. It cost them 5 bucks. I don't equate it with damage. We're not talking McDonald's coffee giving someone 3rd degree burns which some think should be 100% on the customer. We're talking a 5 dollar rental with no tangible level of damage here. Get a life guys.
I said very early on, I think this results in studios just adding a disclaimer to trailers in tiny text. They it with drug ads and car ads, etc. Fine print on a trailer isn't going hurt anything or cost anyone anything in the end. So, big deal.
If i was the judge i'd be tempted to find for them and award them 5 dollars in damages and say they have to pay (or even split) court costs so they come out in the hole in the end as do their lawyers.
I know the final product is an ever changing thing up til the last minute these days with digital distribution. You don't have to have the thing complete til the day before release really.
As I said, if they market in good intentions and something gets cut, i have no problem with it. They tell me a certain person will be in it when they already know they've been cut, then that crosses the line. For this case, to me, it hinges on whether or not the trailer was used once they knew she wasn't in the movie. If so, i think they have a problem. If not, these guys can go screw themselves.
In the end, they weren't selling a love triangle in any trailer I saw, it was all 'one day everyone forgot the beatles but this guy'. That was it. Now, if the flick came out and it was about something completely different, OK, let's talk. But the trailer, to me, sold what the movie was about which is the point and not something all trailers actually do these days. Personally, i think these guys are opportunist losers looking for a pay day. That make it clear?
I'm just saying, legally, if the studio marketed it selling a person who they knew wasn't in it, then legally, i think they have a problem. I also thing these guys would have to prove they knew they were trying to mislead people. If the studio can show she was cut after the trailer came out, i think they're fine. However, I'd like to think a studio isn't dumb enough to actually put that kind of admission in email or paper but, you can never under estimate the stupidity of people.
What I think legally and personally - two different things.
CT1138
Sr Member
In Rogue One's case, I recall the studio mandated the reshoots because Disney asked Edwards to deliver a war film, and he gave them what equated to Saving Private Andor, which the studio considered too violent. So that's more a unique case, as the trailer itself didn't actually create any narrative expectations, but altered the visualization of the narrative they already stated. There's still a Battle of Scarif where Rebel forces steal the Death Star plans as promised. Just the visualization changed to be less violent. In other cases, like this:
What I think this decision is targeted at is for people who get their panties in a twist about trailers like this one:
Not a single shot of this appeared in the movie! I'M SUING!!! This trailer gives NOTHING away! How am I supposed to know what the entire movie is about before seeing it?! This is preposterous!
That was a B-roll shot where Felicity Jones stood up in costume in between shots that was captured on camera. Edwards thought it looked good, and put it in the trailer. These kind of alternate takes ending up in trailers happen all the time.
What I think this decision is targeted at is for people who get their panties in a twist about trailers like this one:
Not a single shot of this appeared in the movie! I'M SUING!!! This trailer gives NOTHING away! How am I supposed to know what the entire movie is about before seeing it?! This is preposterous!
I still see no issue. They shot Spiderman catching a helicoptor between the twin towers knowing that shot wouldn’t be in there…
Ronald isn’t going to serve you at McDonald’s…
Mickey Mouse isn’t going to lead you by the hand through Disney… you may have to stand in line just to meet him for a second.
Trailers are to hype the coming experience.
I’m more angered when an editor is more talented cutting the trailer than the editor cutting the final movie… but who lawyers up over it!? Haha
I think in Canada if you sue and lose you pay all the fees… maybe there needs to be higher stakes in frivolous law suits.
Similar threads
