Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

How do!

An interesting bit of news, where folk who rented a film on the strength of Ana de Armas being in the trailer are suing because when they watched the film, her scenes had been cut.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64076747

Now I’m not commenting on the merit of this, nor the likelihood of such an action actually succeeding on account I don’t know law and that. But some of the wording of the article piqued my interest.

Universal tried to have it thrown out, arguing (my paraphrasing) that trailers aren’t a promise. That failed as the article revealed.

My interest comes from my appreciation of Marvel and Star Wars movies having misleading trailers. Not in a malicious way, but a cunningly remixed way to protect surprises of the plot. As said I have an appreciation for that, but I know it irks others. Hence I thought this might make for an interesting topic to discuss, as this case could render such shenanigans illegal. And so we shall discuss.

Have at it then!

Unexpected Ed Sheeran in the ikky sticky nostaglia fest was a bigger problem !

Sounds like something from the twitterverse to be honest, and best ignored

On the surface it may seem silly, a frivolous law suit with a ridiculous Dollar amount associated with it, but the legal points raised are valid ones.

I’m still mad the Phantom Menace trailer made the movie look exciting. Talk about false advertising!

To be fair, when Battleship teased Liam Neilson, sure it was stupid that he had all of 0 plot-relevant scenes and was basically in the movie just to slap his name on it, but at least he was in the movie.

I've long grown sick and tired of the deference given to advertisements. If these soul-sucking feths are going to slap their souless demon ads on every surface within my sight, the least they can fething do is make them accurate.

Any victory against advertisers and marketing is a victory for mankind. feth politics. feth global warming. feth everything.

Ads and marketers are the true enemies of us all and I pray every single one of them goes straight to hell because if they don't belong there, I don't know who does.

Get a real fething job.

/rant

I don't know. I've heard a lot over the last few years about all the footage left on the cutting room floor and the way pre screenings are used to put a finished movie together now not to mention design by committee/writers rooms.
Cutting someone from a movie almost seems expected now. It's more about content production than anything else we are just meant to consume so in the end it just doesn't matter what the final cut is, seems to me anyway.
Is it false advertising? I think one could make the case but as far as a settlement, give the fans what they wanted a cut with said person, who I can't say I have ever heard of, in the movie. They already have most of what they need in the can. Or just offer refunds....HAHAHA, never do that.
Once you have their money you never give it back!

This could be bad for Ana De Armas career, as now casting her maybe a risk if you decide NOT to use her in the final product. Therefore, avoid the risk and not hire her in the first place.

That is a crazy trail of logic, but it is the kind of strange logic Hollywood runs on!

 LordofHats wrote:
To be fair, when Battleship teased Liam Neilson, sure it was stupid that he had all of 0 plot-relevant scenes and was basically in the movie just to slap his name on it, but at least he was in the movie.

I've long grown sick and tired of the deference given to advertisements. If these soul-sucking feths are going to slap their souless demon ads on every surface within my sight, the least they can fething do is make them accurate.

Any victory against advertisers and marketing is a victory for mankind. feth politics. feth global warming. feth everything.

Ads and marketers are the true enemies of us all and I pray every single one of them goes straight to hell because if they don't belong there, I don't know who does.

Get a real fething job.

/rant

As someone who deals with the aftermath of fraud and scams, I concur particularly around social media’s utter lack of standards when it comes to advertising.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
This could be bad for Ana De Armas career, as now casting her maybe a risk if you decide NOT to use her in the final product. Therefore, avoid the risk and not hire her in the first place.

That is a crazy trail of logic, but it is the kind of strange logic Hollywood runs on!

Sadly I suspect you’re not wrong.

Also. In i a similar crazy logic vein? It could lead to worse movies, where pacing is off and scenes that probably should’ve been left on the cutting room floor are now left in.

 Easy E wrote:
This could be bad for Ana De Armas career, as now casting her maybe a risk if you decide NOT to use her in the final product. Therefore, avoid the risk and not hire her in the first place.

That is a crazy trail of logic, but it is the kind of strange logic Hollywood runs on!

Conversely, could lead to more work for her, since there are people willing to start a lawsuit to see her in movies.

Good on them - the money can sound nuts but yeah the trailer is advertising. I found it more amusing that Universal's lawyers tried to argue the trailer was artistic expression not a commercial venture. Which is a laughable defence really and sounds like they know they've been caught with their pants down.



I'm all for trailers being accurate to the film and the film agency should be held to account to ensure that the trailer isn't telling lies.

 Overread wrote:
Good on them - the money can sound nuts but yeah the trailer is advertising. I found it more amusing that Universal's lawyers tried to argue the trailer was artistic expression not a commercial venture. Which is a laughable defence really and sounds like they know they've been caught with their pants down.



I'm all for trailers being accurate to the film and the film agency should be held to account to ensure that the trailer isn't telling lies.

I broadly agree. If we take Universal’s argument to a deliberately silly extreme? It could be advertising a torture prawn film as super kid friendly, and vice versa. They absolutely are advertising. It’s not “look what we can make. Its look at what we have made.

But equally, if we take the complainant (plaintiff!) claim to an equally ludicrous extreme? MCU and Star Wars would be in trouble for being what for me is clever with the truth to protect surprise and plot.

There is a middle ground of course. I for one don’t want any trailer to be This New Movies Greatest Hits, so I appreciate a bit of misdirection. But given few if any trailers are from the final cut? I can only hope any successful case ruling for the claimant is nuanced.

Rather than "clever" misdirection the middle ground, I should think, is to use material from the movie to convey the themes and mood of the movie without giving twists and resolutions away. Maybe that means exercising a little discipline and not giving the good parts away in the trailer. Maybe that means having enough good material in the movie that you don't have to rely on the best bits being spoiled. There are ways of doing that without resorting to deception, unless of course the movie isn't good enough. In which case I'd still prefer an accurate trailer over a deceptive one. The movie studio, not so much for obvious reasons.

I'm in favor of anti-false advertising laws applying to trailers. Maybe that means the marketing people have to put in extra work to to adhere to minimum standards, but oddly enough that idea doesn't bother me.

I think this is where the rub lies.

Featuring an actor or actress more suitably dubbed Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Film is clearly a step too far.

But, whilst I accept and don’t challenge others dislike it, I like the MCU and Star Wars approach. The scene exists. The dialogue is correct….it’s just played differently. And expressly to maintain the mystique of the film’s story and even tone.

Depending how far this case goes, and the wording of the judgement, we could lose such (to me) niceties.

I think a court can appreciate the difference between an advertisement spicing things up a bit and an advertisement outright displaying something clearly that isn't present.


It's one thing to show bits of a storyline and withhold bits of it; and its another to show something that just isn't present in the film at all.


At best this might mean that trailer firms no longer get the free hand to add whatever they want to a trailer and have to remain within the confines of the final cut material.
This is little more than a shakeup and correction for things that have steadily slipped more and more each time a new wave of ads went out.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But, whilst I accept and don’t challenge others dislike it, I like the MCU and Star Wars approach. The scene exists. The dialogue is correct….it’s just played differently. And expressly to maintain the mystique of the film’s story and even tone.

Mind giving an example of this if it isn't too much trouble? It's a bit abstract just reading it like that and I can't say I see the merit. Not without a nudge anyway.

The MCU famously had the Hulk appear in the big charge in early trailers for Infinity War, hiding the fact that he doesn’t appear in the end battle at all.

For Star Wars, all I can remember is earlier trailers for Rogue One showing a lot of stuff that got cut or changed after they studio switched the directors.

 Geifer wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But, whilst I accept and don’t challenge others dislike it, I like the MCU and Star Wars approach. The scene exists. The dialogue is correct….it’s just played differently. And expressly to maintain the mystique of the film’s story and even tone.

Mind giving an example of this if it isn't too much trouble? It's a bit abstract just reading it like that and I can't say I see the merit. Not without a nudge anyway.

Sure. By no means every such example, but a sample example.

1. Avengers. The whole “billionaire genius playboy philanthropist” scene in the trailer was much more light hearted, particularly Thor’s laugh.

2. The Force Awakens. Trailer made it look like Finn was the nascent Jedi, not Rae

3 and . Wot Bob said just above.

Subtle changes which whilst misleading, aren’t necessarily lies. Cinematic sleight of hand.

The question in the lawsuit is very limited and clear cut, is including footage in a trailer that is not in the final cut false advertising?

(showing a film in the best light, making an action film seem funny, or a drama action-packed, or a bad movie look good are not false advertising)

If a commercial shows a car with features it does not have that would seem to be false advertising. But showing it driven down a beautiful country road with a supermodel in the shotgun seat is not.

Of course most of the time the company can claim they acted in good faith, working from footage that was supposed to be final when they made the trailer. Besides these days it's easy to check who is in the final cut.

A disclaimer somewhere to the effect of 'footage not final' might take care of that. Similar to car commercials that have a note 'optional extra on some models' when showing off some feature.

I expect that the suit will go forward but I hope the best the plaintiffs get is a $4 refund.

Yet my appreciation for the Avengers trailer was making an action film seem comedic. Or at least one particular scene.

The difference is simply the tone of Thor’s laugh. From jovial “good point, bruh” to scornful. Spesh with the follow up line which goes something like “you people are so pathetic, and tiny”

The tone of that laugh flips the message of that scene.

There’s no argument the trailer was misleading. And deliberately so. Just…..not in a bad way.

Ultimately they lost this case because the lawyers made a stupid weaksauce attempt at a 1st amendment "It's art!" argument. That backfired and I imagine some of those lawyers will not be part of the bigger case.

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:
On the surface it may seem silly, a frivolous law suit with a ridiculous Dollar amount associated with it, but the legal points raised are valid ones.

My first thought was "Typical Americans suing over stupid dumb things that no one should care about", but no... the way it was argued was makes real sense.

It is, as they put it, "advertising speech". If it misrepresents the film, then it is akin to (or just is) false advertising.

I think that the long term result of this will just be a disclaimer in trailers that say something like "Final product subject to change" or "Advertisement may not be representative of finished product".

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also. In i a similar crazy logic vein? It could lead to worse movies, where pacing is off and scenes that probably should’ve been left on the cutting room floor are now left in.

You're missing the point.

Something like this doesn't stop filmmakers from cutting scenes. What it stops them from doing is advertising things that are blatantly not in the film.

Ana De Armas remained (and, to this day, remains) in the trailers for this film. They continued to advertise the film as though she was part of it.

There are still trailers out there All The Money In The World that have Kevin Spacey, rather than Christopher Plummer. But the studio stopped advertising with the trailers that included Spacey once he was recast and they re-filmed everything with Plummer.

And it's not going to hurt her. That's absurd.

 LordofHats wrote:
To be fair, when Battleship teased Liam Neilson, sure it was stupid that he had all of 0 plot-relevant scenes and was basically in the movie just to slap his name on it, but at least he was in the movie.

But that's not false of misleading. He was in the film. If the trailers had had him there, but in the film he simply never shows up, then that'd be the current situation.

I recall the I Am Legend trailer which included the alternate ending they didn’t show in theaters.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But, whilst I accept and don’t challenge others dislike it, I like the MCU and Star Wars approach. The scene exists. The dialogue is correct….it’s just played differently. And expressly to maintain the mystique of the film’s story and even tone.

Mind giving an example of this if it isn't too much trouble? It's a bit abstract just reading it like that and I can't say I see the merit. Not without a nudge anyway.

Sure. By no means every such example, but a sample example.

1. Avengers. The whole “billionaire genius playboy philanthropist” scene in the trailer was much more light hearted, particularly Thor’s laugh.

2. The Force Awakens. Trailer made it look like Finn was the nascent Jedi, not Rae

3 and . Wot Bob said just above.

Subtle changes which whilst misleading, aren’t necessarily lies. Cinematic sleight of hand.

Hmm. So, Avengers. My question is, what's gained by changing things around like that? I think it's weird to misrepresent the actual movie like that. Easy to say no harm done, but it seems really pointless to me.

Force Awakens, to be fair, Finn is screwing around with a lightsaber in the movie. I can see how showing him with it but not Rey may be an attempt to mislead people, which again is just weird to me, but without seeing the trailer for myself I can't really say if that's what they're going with.

Rogue One, I'd ask if they used the same trailer after they reshot and recut the movie. If so, come on, new movie, new trailer. How hard can it be? If not, you can't blame them for using what was at the time current material in the trailer.

I don't know, the whole thing is giving me a headache. It just sounds like dishonesty for the sake of it, because you can and for no gain, but only in such small doses that nobody can really complain about it?

It’s subtle misdirection to preserve the plot before people actually sit down and watch the movie.

Plus, I have a sadistic streak which enjoys people claiming they know the whole plot from the trailer and therefore the writers are hacks and so on, but they get it wildly wrong.

The best thing about the Rogue One trailers was that amazing minor key rendition of the Imperial March. I watched it on loop so many times.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The MCU famously had the Hulk appear in the big charge in early trailers for Infinity War, hiding the fact that he doesn’t appear in the end battle at all.

For Star Wars, all I can remember is earlier trailers for Rogue One showing a lot of stuff that got cut or changed after they studio switched the directors.

There was a test screening - which didn't poll so well, and stuff was also changed because of that. Stuff was also shot because at the time "it looked cool - we may not use it in the movie, but it can spice up a trailer" which a few directors are fond of doing, too.

The best use of this by far was not having Thor's eye missing in the Ragnarok trailers. That went so far to preserve the impact of the finale.

I think that's the important distinction. If the trailer ends up more memorable than the final scene, people end up disappointed. You have to hide presents so the audience feels rewarded by the deception.

TPM trailer promised it as an outstanding example of cinematic excellence.

Instead we got Jar Jar.

 chromedog wrote:
TPM trailer promised it as an outstanding example of cinematic excellence.

Instead we got Jar Jar.

And worse, set a trend that has continued for six movies now; each one worse than the last.

I would say Ewoks set the trend first.

 LunarSol wrote:
The best use of this by far was not having Thor's eye missing in the Ragnarok trailers. That went so far to preserve the impact of the finale.

I think that's the important distinction. If the trailer ends up more memorable than the final scene, people end up disappointed. You have to hide presents so the audience feels rewarded by the deception.

This is the sort of stuff I’m getting at.

Featuring an actor or actress aptly named Sir Not Appearing In This Film is clearly unfair advertising, and frankly inexcusable.

But, tweaking scenes here and there to preserve plot secrets? That’s a different kettle of fish. Hence I’m keen to see if this does proceed to court and formal ruling, exactly what the ruling is.