Have you ever been so angry at a movie’s trailer that you wanted to sue the studio?
This is not hypothetical. Two fans of actor Ana de Armas are outraged that they were “duped” into spending $3.99 — to be fair, $3.99 each — to rent the 2019 film Yesterday by her appearance in the trailer, even though her scenes had been cut from the final film. So outraged that they filed a lawsuit.
From Variety:
The suit accuses Universal of engaging in deceptive marketing, and seeks to recoup at least $5 million on behalf of affected consumers.
“Because consumers were promised a movie with Ana De Armas by the trailer for ‘Yesterday,’ but did not receive a movie with any appearance of Ana de Armas at all, such consumers were not provided with any value for their rental or purchase,” the lawsuit states.
I mean, I wasn’t much of a fan of the movie, but to suggest that there was no value at all — not even $3.99’s worth — without de Armas is a stretch. (See one of de Armas’s deleted scenes at YouTube. It’s cute enough. But does it provide even $3.99’s worth of entertainment? When you can watch it for free on YouTube?)
But okay. If you can sue claiming “no value” over this, can you sue when all the funny bits are in the trailer? Can you sue if a piece of music you love is in the trailer but not in the movie? What about a trailer would get you so furious that you had to take legal action?
(You can also discuss this at Substack or Patreon, if you prefer. You don’t need to be a paying subscriber to comment, but you will need to register with either site to do so.)
I wanted to sue the producers after I saw the trailer for The Matrix Resurrections for the fourth time.
That trailer’s use of “White Rabbit” was in clear violation of the Way Too on the Nose Act of 2021.
(I also admit to an irrational aversion against people who are way too into the works of Lewis Carroll.)
But in all seriousness, my answer is no, of course not. Trailers are ads, ads can be misleading, it’s all part of the game.
What would make ME sue a studio over a trailer? Absolutely nothing. Life’s too short, and this is the first-worldliest of first world problems.
But do these plaintiffs have GROUNDS to sue? That might be an interesting question. As David Conner says in his comment, ads can be misleading, but there’s surely a discussion to be had as to HOW misleading an ad can be. How much misrepresentation is too much misrepresentation? If I buy a food product that promises particular ingredients in its ads, and it turns out to lack some of those ingredients, is that suable? Should studios commit to releasing trailers only after a film’s final version has been cut? Or add in a little fine-print disclaimer at the trailer’s end, saying “This movie has not yet been finalized and some scenes may not appear in the film?” What about Marvel’s practice of altering their trailers to avoid giving away spoilers? Or teaser trailers (such as for Terminator 2, the 1998 Godzilla, and Raimi’s first Spider-Man) that consist entirely of scenes that are made specifically for the trailer and aren’t intended to be in the film at all?
Maybe the question is, does the trailer/advertisement sufficiently represent what the film actually is? Clearly it’s false advertising if the trailer sells you Star Wars and the actual film turns out to be Star Trek instead. But “sufficiently represent” is where the gray area and the arguments happen.
One might also ask: why does the trailer have to be made so early that the final cut of the film isn’t available to be drawn from?
(The law is very much on the side of advertisers in most places, alas. Personally I’d love to ban all advertisements.)
I have seen trailers which very clearly give away the Big Twist, but my feeling is that if all a film’s got going for it is that Big Twist then it’s probably not worth watching anyway. No, I’ve never been a fan of M. Night, why do you ask?
I wouldn’t mind seeing more trailers that simply show that the film is in the process of being made. I like this one for Last Crusade:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqnYo5X-1Zc&ab_channel=TheTrailerGuy
Yes indeed! You get some hints to the sort of thing that’s going to be happening, but if in the end there isn’t a fighter strafing an open car you probably won’t be too disappointed.
Mind you, it wouldn’t work as well with a more talky film.
It’s a promotional tool, of course. Some films generate more excitement if the audience thinks the movie is a big event. So we get trailers for trailers, and websites reporting on them: Here’s a teaser trailer. That means a full-length trailer is coming. I’ve also been to conventions where people announce things like: Now we can reveal the title of the film. Or: Now we can show you the logo.
There’s also artificial secrecy, where the people promoting the movie say they can’t reveal the tiniest detail of the movie, even if it’s just an appearance by a minor supporting character. I almost miss complaints that the trailer gives away the whole plot of the movie, although I’m sure that sort of trailer is still around.
Remember the trailer-trailer-trailer-trailer train for Robin Williams in Hook? They started in like, May. Showed nothing at all and carried on like that for months. Maybe it was the first of its kind.
VFX take so long to that often the final cut of a film isn’t ready until VERY soon before release. And yet it’s precisely those sorts of blockbusters that are getting promoted a year or more before release.
And sometimes — as appears to be the case with Yesterday — films are so focus-grouped that even when FX are not an issue they think the film is closed to locked, it’s still open to editing.
It’s when movies are more product than art that this is an issue.
I was a little angry about the trailer for the second Matrix film, which made it look like a terrific movie.
ABSOLUTLY!!!! 2016’s Ghostbusters bowel movement. The minute I saw that garbage I knew what had happened! Thank god for Jason Reitman!
What, pray tell, happened?