Yesterday lawsuit

[Asura]

Just read this:

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/ana-de-armas-yesterday-trailer-lawsuit-settled-1235972010/

Apparently two people sued Universal because there's an actress in the trailer for the movie Yesterday who, due to editing, isn't actually in the final cut of the movie. They made the argument that this was false advertising, but apparently the case got quite complicated and the two men were on the hook for $120k of legal fees! They just settled out of court.

It seems kinda bizarre to me. I mean, if you go see a movie because the trailer or poster depicts something not in the movie, surely that's reason enough to be entitled to a refund or rebate of some sort? It just seems like such an open and shut case.

[Dogg Thang]

Like when games companies state an intention during development and then people lose their **** because something is different at release, I think there is some basic media literacy that is needed here. If trailers wilfully misrepresent a movie up until release, that's an issue and they should have a case. A glimpse of a shot that turns out not to make the final cut is no basis for a case.

[QualityChimp]

It's one of those instances where people can sue because McDonald's Hot Apple pie is hot or peanuts contain peanuts and need labelling to say so.

However, with videogames, they had to add a disclaimer about "NOT ACTUAL GRAPHICS" after someone complained about it and it was upheld that you can't just show anything and claim it's the game or show a high-end PC running a game and claim it's DS footage.

With films, the trailer is less of a specific description of what happens in the 2 hour movie, but a flavour of what it's about.
Sometimes it's misleading on purpose (love the Hereditary trailer for tricking me), sometimes it's just a teaser with no in-film footage, like The Spy Who Shagged me or Terminator 2.

Either way, trailers are a WIP or only supposed to be representative, not a cast-iron guarantee that all the songs/actors/events will happen in the final cut.

It's going to be annoying if trailers start having to add "NOT FINAL CUT" or something just to appease these pedants.

[Asura]

I'm surprised at those responses; surely companies shouldn't be able to advertise things that aren't in the product? And if they need to be sure, maybe they should make the trailer when the movie's basically finished?

I agree that in some cases this is people nitpicking over specifc shots not being in a movie from a trailer - but a particular actor being in the trailer, but wholly not in the movie seems to be more than just a minor change.

[Dogg Thang]

Literally the only way to be sure is the way you suggest - every game or film would need to be 100% complete before they tell anyone about it in case they show or suggest something that doesn’t make it into the final version. There are so many instances where actors get cut from movies. A teaser editor or even the director can’t know that at the time most trailers are made. Most people know this. As QC says, a trailer is most often a flavour.

[Asura]

Conflicted over this as I see the production issue; but at the same time I'm fundamentally opposed to the idea that a person, marketing any product, can put stuff in its advertising that isn't in the product, and for that not to be seen as a pretty grievous error.

Like I don't think it's grounds to have the director executed or anything daft like that... But I also don't know how I feel about it being normalised as 'one of those things'.

[prinnysquad]

What about when a trailer is used/has the impact of a piece of market research of some kind?

Think about the visual overhaul of Sonic after the trailer. I don’t think anyone was too bothered about the original design not being included in the final cut.

[Neon Ignition]

In the broader scheme it reminds me of the debates that took place when Predators came out and didn't include a scene where Brody faced off against a dozen Predators because the trailer had included a shot where he is laser targeted by loads of red dots. Trailers containing moments that don't make the final cut are ten a penny, it's decades past being normalised. Off the top of my head, the trailer for Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire contains shots such as Lucky being fully frozen, the team out in frozen New York looking over the villain etc and none of those are in the final film. However, it's because films are in editing for so long and undergo so many changes. They might not being in the film but the final film itself still reflects the experience that it was marketed on. You'd have to be incredibly invested in seeing Paul Rudd in a red jacket to be offended by the change.

With Yesterday specifically, the film marketed itself on its story, tone, genre, leading actors etc and all of those are exactly as marketed. It had two trailers and it's incredibly clear from the one trailer De Armas is in that had she not been cut from it then her part in the film would have been a single scene cameo that might not have even involved a speaking part. For the pair involved to claim they watched it solely on the basis of her being in it would suggest they're huge fans but you'd expect that if that were the case they'd be a little more clued up on her films and involvement. Likewise, the effort and work involved in launching such a lawsuit claim against a studio goes well beyond the effort in finding out how much an actor is likely to be in a film that they clearly aren't the lead for. Then there's the consideration that they believed their $3.99 rental warranted millions of dollars in compensation. I can't for one second believe that they were genuine in their claim.

[QualityChimp]

It's walking that fine between what consumers need and what consumers want.
We need honesty in adverts, but not at all costs.

Conversely to these chancers, I try to avoid trailers because they always show too much - the best jokes, the best shots and sometimes they ruin the twist or major plot points, so you're waiting for them to happen.

Personally, this is the kind of lawsuit that doesn't end up benefitting anyone at quite a ridiculous expense.

[Dogg Thang]

If I remember correctly, Predators was an example where that shot was deliberately misleading with added dots just for the trailer and the trailer alone.