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
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.