Ana de Armas fans know—and may change—the law, baby
A California judge ruled in favor of two fans who were disappointed over de Armas' removal from Yesterday
Aux News Ana de Armas
With their love of Ana de Armas and hatred of false advertising, two fans have set a precedent when it comes to deception in movie trailers. The two filed a lawsuit earlier this year after renting 2019's Yesterday, only to realize the final theatrical release contained no de Armas, despite her appearance in the trailers released by Universal.
A California judge has ruled in favor of the stans, ruling that movie trailers qualify as “commercial speech” and are subject to the California False Adverting Law and Unfair Competition Law. So, when Universal teased de Armas’ role in Yesterday’s initial trailers—only to remove all of her scenes later—they duped the viewers who rented the film on the pretense she had a significant role and would not have purchased the film otherwise.
Universal’s shaky defense argued movie trailers fall under “artistic, expressive work,” and therefore do not qualify as “commercial speech.” While there may be some artistic merit to trailers, their main objective is to entice prospective viewers by showcasing the film’s stars and major plot points.
“Universal is correct that trailers involve some creativity and editorial discretion, but this creativity does not outweigh the commercial nature of a trailer,” U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson wrote on the ruling. “At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a movie by providing consumers with a preview of the movie.”
De Armas was set to appear in Yesterday as a secondary love interest to Himesh Patel’s character after the two meet on a late-night talk show together (hosted by James Corden, of all people). The film’s screenwriter previously explained the scenes were cut due to audiences’ displeasure with seeing the lead character pursue a romance outside of his relationship with Lily James’ Ellie.
Universal’s defense argued that ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would set a dangerous precedent, allowing any moviegoer to sue over dissatisfaction with a film despite enjoying the trailer.
“Under Plaintiffs’ reasoning, a trailer would be stripped of full First Amendment protection and subject to burdensome litigation anytime a viewer claimed to be disappointed with whether and how much of any person or scene they saw in the trailer was in the final film; with whether the movie fit into the kind of genre they claimed to expect; or any of an unlimited number of disappointments a viewer could claim,” the studio’s lawyers argued, per Variety.
However, Wilson attests there are limitations to the ruling. “The Court’s holding is limited to representations as to whether an actress or scene is in the movie, and nothing else,” the judge writes.
Plaintiffs Conor Woulfe and Peter Michael Rosza seek $5 million in damages. The case will now move onto discovery and a motion for class certification.
153 Comments
The plaintiffs are technically correct (which is the best kind of correct), but this lawsuit is still absurdly frivolous.But I get it: I’ll take as much de Armas as I can get.
I feel conflicted. On the one hand, it seems a ridiculous waste of resources to pursue this in court. On the other, you don’t go around promising people Ana de Armas and then deny them Ana de Armas.
I always appreciate this Futurama quote.
I’m fine if the plaintiff’s end up winning this case, so as long as they’re awarded $23.50 for the price of a ticket and popcorn.
100% frivolous. A $10 ticket worth the legal fees and just generally getting laughed at? Priceless.What’s next? Lawsuits from people who judged a book by its cover?
It’s not frivolous. They spent money they otherwise wouldn’t have because a company misled them about the nature of the product. Any competent legal system would provide them with compensation in that circumstance.
I think it’s important to point out that this ruling allows the trial to happen. The actual trial itself isn’t even close to starting yet! Yet this article (unsurprisingly) makes it sound like the plaintiffs won the case and everything is going to change now, which is wrong and dumb and what the hell is wrong with you.Also even if the plaintiffs do win, you know what will happen? Studios will simply slap a disclaimer on trailers saying “Final film may differ from contents shown in trailer.” That’s it. They won’t need to change anything else.
dirtside, attorney at law!
Disclaimer: Anyone who relies on me for legal advice is a moron. Offer void in Chile.
He may just be a small town country dirtside, not one of those fancy-talking high-falutin’ big city dirtsides, but he knows his onions.
Oh go write a John Mellencamp song!
“Sometimes the law gets dirty and you need a lawyer familiar with that side, Dirtside, attorney at law, coming this fall to CBS”
I agree with most of your post, and I don’t know the case law on this, but I am not sure an advertisement can have a disclaimer that states that any claims made in the advertisement are not guaranteed -”Our product has X – actual product may not have X”.
[Game samples captured from development version, may not reflect actual gameplay.]
I would fucking love if they started doing this with video games. Especially with the various ports. *cough* Witcher III 4.0 *cough*
My point, was, they do, in very small type.
DonBoy2’s response is on point, and I’ll also add that the existence of the phrase “Serving Suggestion” on millions of food products strongly indicates that you can get away with just about anything with the right disclaimer. Food manufacturers have, literally for longer than I’ve been alive, putting photographs of food on their products that is not in their products and getting away with it. Occasionally having Ana de Armas in your trailer is peanuts by comparison.
The game example is arguably on point, but your example is easily distinguishable. That is merely presentation of and around the food and not a claim about the food itself. And I am not sure what your point is with regard to “serving suggestions”
The point is that a package of food can contain pictures of food that are not in the package, and all they have to do is say “Serving suggestion” and they can get away with what is otherwise blatantly false advertising. That strongly suggests that studios could just slap a disclaimer like “Final movie may differ from images presented here” on their trailers, and get away with showing actors in the trailer who are not in the movie.
It’s a meal table. They show cereal with toast and orance juice, but they don’t need a disclaimer stating they are not part of the food product. No one thinks the other food is the food. “Serving suggestion” has nothing to do with that.
The package in this photo does not contain strawberries or milk, yet strawberries and milk are depicted in the photo. They put “Serving suggestion” on the package because it would otherwise be false advertising. I don’t know why you’re having so much trouble understanding this.
But they don’t need to put that on. No one with a mentality above that of a two-year-old would think otherwise. “Serving suggestion” is about the quantity and/or the manner of serving.
Agree to disagree, I guess. Disclaimers are a thing, they provide legal protection, and I’m done trying to explain that basic fact to you.
You do not need to explain anything. You just misunderstand what “serving suggestion” means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serving_suggestion“As a disclaimer a serving suggestion also serves to remove any legal
obligation on the part of the manufacturer to provide the other items
pictured with their product.”Don’t know what else to tell you.
OK, so it means what you thought it did (per this wikipedia article and I have no desire to waste more time on this). Regardless, this has zero to do with the trailer matter. To me, what “serving suggestion” is trying to convey is obvious and you would have to be a moron to think otherwise. The trailer is different. Little things like music in the trailer not being in the movie would be akin to the other foods present on the cereal box. Not actual scenes between actors. I am used to trailers having scenes that do not end up in the movie, but it is still false advertising.
“People who disagree with me are morons.” Yes, that’s always a winning debate strategy. You’re right, we are done here.
That’s not what I said at all, but if that’s what you need to feel better about yourself, go ahead.
Having followed your insistence that dirtside didn’t know what he was talking about when he clearly did to the point of harassment?That actually IS what you said. At all.
He did not provide any evidence to support his assertion on that point. When he did, I immediately admitted I was wrong on that point. However, ,y general statement still applied. Now the guy who set forth the gameplay argument has a much more strongly supported argument for why they can essentially do what I think is silly. Of course, I do not know if such disclaimers have been tested in courts and admittedly, i am doing no research on this.
Also, I actually considered it to be a discussion, not harassment. And I accept a Wikipedia article as prima facie evidence, but it still seems that “serving suggestion” would not serve the communication function necessary for a disclaimer anyway. But the law is not always intuitive.
What if you’re allergic to peanuts?Then Ana de Armas makes you swell up and choke—which she has never done to me in my life, so she’s not peanuts.
Car commercials often have such a message when a feature shows on screen that’s not in the standard package.
Right, but those options are available, just not on the base model
What’s the base model of Ana de Armas?And where can I take her for a test drive…?Since I’ve pretty much perpetually stuck in The Grey’s, I may as well just keep Going There….
The OP had talked about showing cars in commercials that contain features that are not on the base model. My point was the consumer can still get those features, they just have to pay extra. If as a consumer, you pay more for tickets for the movie with the actress, then I would be fine.
That was literally a recurring joke on “The Simpsons.” (Commercial: “We guarantee it!” Voice at end of commercial: “Not an actual guarantee.”) So, it would be both funny and a little infuriating if that becomes an actual commercial practice.
Advertisers get away with a lot of shit with pretty inadequate disclaimers.
“This movie was produced in a facility that also manufactures Ana de Armas products, and some traces of Ana de Armas may remain.”
“This film produced in a facility that also processes Michael Bay products.”
The first sign that you might have an Ana de Armas allergy is swelling … in certain parts of your body.
Is that what causes it?
That’s most likely what the solution to this lawsuit(if it wins) will be. Some text on the screen that says “preview footage, actual cast subject to change”
“Card Subject to Change.”
You’re correct of course, but this ruling does still have an impact, in deciding that previews/trailers are commercial speech and not an artistic work. Even if anyone suing over a misleading preview isn’t likely to win, the fact that they can sue, putting studios in the position of having to decide whether to settle or go through discovery and a trial, is kind of a big deal. It’s like the Happy Birthday song, which had a weak claim to copyright, yet for years and years studios would either avoid using it or pay, just because getting sued and making their case in court to blow it up was onerous.
You’re correct of course, but this ruling does still have an impact, in deciding that previews/trailers are commercial speech and not an artistic work.It’s my understanding that this ruling doesn’t establish binding precedent of any kind. This is just a pretrial ruling saying that the judge believes the plaintiffs have standing and that the respondents don’t have an obvious First Amendment stance that would make the lawsuit frivolous. No actual trial has occurred and no other court is bound by this ruling.
Yeah but they put out the Snyder Cut and look what happened. People are sending hate speech to James Gunn and posting stuff online along the lines of “we’re their bosses! lets just boycott them!”
They aren’t going to start from square one and re-litigate whether or not movie trailers are commercial speech for each and every case that comes up, that’s why the studio was arguing about how damaging a precedent it would be when they were trying to get it dismissed. The ruling is the ruling; the question was asked, argued, and answered by a federal judge. It isn’t like a Supreme Court ruling, but it does make that argument a lot more difficult to make going forward. Movie trailers aren’t artistic work with First Amendment protections, they’re commercial speech subject to the same regulations as all other advertising.The only limitation is the box drawn around this case that it’s about showing people and scenes in trailers that aren’t in the movie. Which actually does make sense with the Drive case, because the woman there argued that the trailer was deceptive, but the trailer doesn’t have anything in it that isn’t in the movie, which was the basis for her losing.Quotation from the ruling:“Universal is correct that trailers involve some creativity and editorial discretion, but this creativity does not outweigh the commercial nature of a trailer. At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a movie by providing consumers with a preview of the movie. The Court’s holding is limited to representations as to whether an actress or scene is in the movie, and nothing else.”
The ruling is the ruling; the question was asked, argued, and answered by a federal judge. It isn’t like a Supreme Court ruling, but it does make that argument a lot more difficult to make going forward.The only degree to which this is true is that another district judge might decide that they agree with this ruling and reference it rather than doing the work of working out the logic themselves. But as of now, other judges in the same district (or any other federal court district or circuit) overseeing a case with the same issue could freely ignore this ruling and deliver an opposing one.
Universal’s argument is mainly a complaint that this ruling might encourage other people to file similar suits, putting a burden on them, but there’s still no obligation for any court to follow what this court did.
So the plaintiffs got their $3.99 back? Kidding aside I think this is a fair ruling, and something Universal could have easily avoided. Cuts happen all the time, but there should be better communication between the filmmakers and the trailer house, who often craft these separate from the studios, and sometimes have no familiarity with the movies they are making trailers for. They are just contract gigs. Keep them informed and up to date. (Unless Universal willfully intended to be misleading…)
LOL. But in all seriousness, it’s a class action, so if they end up prevailing it will be more like “100,000 people get their $3.99 back.”Also, useful information about how trailers get made, that undercuts the studio’s “free speech” argument even more.
Can we do the same thing with movie posters? I was tricked into buying a ticket for Bulworth because the poster promised a little hip-hop guy emerging from Warren Beatty’s mouth.
I’d vote for any ban that includes that Ryan Reynolds/Will Ferrell whatever Spirited ad I see everywhere. What the fuck is it? Am I supposed to just think it’s about two guys that might run? I mean I assume it’s another Christmas war of the dads movie like Deck the Halls or Jingle All The Way, but seriously, it’s the worst poster ever.
Apparently, Farrel is an employee of the supernatural agency that sends a series of ghosts, Christmas Carol-style, to mean, stingy Christmas-haters and teach them lessons about miserliness and being nicer on Christmas, and Reynolds is the latest candidate for the Scrooge treatment, and a musical comedy results.
Jesus. That sounds awful.
On this theme, I will rant aat any opportunity about the egregious lie that was the poster for “Reign Of Fire”. I was promised a dragons vs Apache gunships battle over central London, dammit!
I once bought a ticket to see “Salaam Bombay” because the movie poster showed a smiling Indian boy and the phrase “The Feel-Good Hit of the Summer” was printed over the top. It was, without a doubt, the most depressing movie I’ve ever seen. They may as well have taken “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and marketed it as a rom-com.
That’s how my wife and I feel about The Life of Pi.
I once snuck into Barton Fink, because it was an R-rated movie.
Not to mention, Bombay no longer exists! What, am I expected to salaam Mumbai, now? No thank you!
Weirdest Candyman sidequel…
It should be illegal to cut Ana de Armas from the movie. I support a law for that.Also, if everyone in the world forgot the Beatles existed, I may never realize. Just wouldn’t come up in my life.
I think, but can’t be sure, you did what I saw you do.
Yesterday wasn’t terribly interesting and because of a record company owning the rights to the music he ‘made’, you can’t just give it away on a mic announcement (piracy and the laws against it are no less or more a thing before he opened his yap than after it).Also the film glossed over a much more interesting idea, how much better a world would be without cigarettes ever having existed. As a public health degree holder, I wanted to see *that* movie.
yeah but they also had Pepsi instead of Coke, is that really the world you wanna live in?!
I’ve been a Coca-Cola loyalist for five decades; I just can’t stand Pepsi.I’d gladly trade it for a cigarette-free world, in a heartbeat, no regrets.Heck, I’d also give up Moon Pies, cheddar cheese, and salmon for a world without cigarettes.
No I do not
Does the tobacco plant not exist, or have people simply not discovered it/pursued processing it into cigarettes? Because that would be an ethical challenge for a person in financial hardship: what if you knew you could be the person to potentially monopolise a product you know to be incredibly addictive but a hideous health hazard?
If I had to guess, I imagine the plant exists but no one thought to smoke it because well, it is a pretty daft idea and tastes and smells foul. I mean, I heard when Sir Francis Drake brought smoking back to the UK, he was thrown into prison because they thought he was possessed. You know, because of all the smoke pouring out of his head.
He was such a stupid get.
“Harry, pick up your extension–it’s Nutty Walt from The Colonies….”
Also, if everyone in the world forgot the Beatles existed, I may never realize.Halfway through the film, I thought that it might have turned into a story about how it wasn’t just the songs that clicked with the public, but the performance of those songs by the Beatles, leaving the lead to realize that his lack of success wasn’t his material but his talent. That could have been a more interesting film.
I haven’t seen Yesterday, but this is exactly what would happen if the scenario played out in real life. No one would hear the Beatles’ songs for the first time in 2019 or whatever and think ‘these are the greatest songs ever written! I can’t believe how good these songs are! So much better than all the other songs!’ It’s not just the Beatles’ performance, but the time and culture in which they were made that made them a phenomenon.
I believe that was the original premise of the story that led to this movie, the guy does all right but as the Beatles and their work being so successful was a confluence of a number events including the time and place which now wasn’t the case and hence the much more modest success. Then the studio got involved.
That would have been much more interesting than the actual movie, which I tried to be open-minded about but just ended up hating its fucking guts.
The film isn’t that far off that premise, the lead guy doesn’t find global superstardom from playing Beatles songs in 2019. He becomes an opening act for Ed Sheeran and gets a record deal, he doesn’t immediately start selling out stadiums or something.
2: Whenever Ana de Armas isn’t on screen, all the other characters should be asking, “Where’s Ana de Armas?”
I think it’s sweet that you’re supporting the BS narrative that these are people who really wanted to see this movie and only wanted to see it because of Ana, and not calling it out for the horseshit, nuisance lawsuit that it is.
Will this law be retroactive? I’m still angry that I never got to see Monica Keena yell, “Freddy vs Jason – PLACE YOUR BETS!” in the finished copy of the film after seeing it so many times in the trailer, and I’d like a new motorboat.
The Morbius guys turn to each other and say “We’re in big trouble.”
“Great news, guys! No one cares enough about our film to sue us for the misleading trailer.”“Yay! … aw.”
I want my $5 million for the original ‘Going in Style’ trailers making me think the movie was going to be funny back when I was 8 years old.
Tarantino is next , I was promised Michael Jai White in the Kill Bill films.
Ana de Armas is gorgeous.
Here you go.
Thirsty ass. LOL!
Pssh if you look up the definition of Perfection it’s just a picture of Ana de Armas
I’ve said it here before, but the first time I saw Ana de Armas it was in the Blade Runner sequel and I legit thought she was a special effect. I simply assumed that someone so perfect must have been computer-generated (and because of the role she was playing in that movie, nothing about that idea was challenged until I later saw photos of her).
I feel like this tweet from Lin-Manuel Miranda could equally apply to de Armas:
Funny I 100% forgot she was in Blade Runner 2099, I always remember her from Knives Out, but she’s up there with Alica Vikander in that, how can they be that flawless level of beauty.
Honestly she was always out of this movie’s league.
Thank goodness I am not the only one with this shameful fetish for attractive Hollywood starlets.
You can c’mon out of that closet.
I admit it! I’m turned on by, and attracted to conventionally beautiful people!
Finally a wokester with a sane comment
Is she a cool Cuban or a gusano
I mean, what’s next? Are they going to promise us Aubrey Plaza and then banish her to the cutting room floor???
I’d banish her to the Phantom Zone. She plays the same fucking basic non-entity character in every single fucking thing she’s in. She’s playing herself and not in a sexy-times way!
Everything Aubrey Plaza does is in a “sexy-times” way
DeArmas reminds me of Carolyn Jones from the classic Addams Family TV show.
Anyone else remember the Drive lawsuit because Drive didn’t have enough driving?https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/the-drive-lawsuit-finally-a-case-that-encourages-suing-over-misleading-movie-trailers/2011/10/10/gIQAEF1YaL_blog.html
Never show those people “Naked Lunch.”
LOL no shit, heck that even got a Simpson reference.
Also an MST3K reference when the gang made new pop-up books for invention exchange.
12 year old me was SO disappointed (and more than a little traumatized)
In addition to being generally stupid, that complaint overlooks the fact that “drive” has multiple meanings ( as I’m sure NWR intended).
“Very disappointed that there are no wolves in this movie”: https://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R102E4NQTLEY8N
This is stupid. We are stupid. Everything is stupid. Didn’t expect this to be the thing that plunged me headfirst into nihilism. But here we are.
Well, companies possibly being held accountable for false advertising is easily the worst thing I’ve experienced in a long time, so I’m right there with you. I’m taking to the streets to stop this garbage.
Can I sue the makers of ‘No Time to Die’? It wasn’t false advertising per se, but the fact that they could have had de Armas playing Paloma for the entire run of the film instead of just one segment and didn’t must be some kind of crime.
HE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO DIE.
As soon as this goes through, first order of business is to sue the studio behind Kangaroo Jack. I was promised a comedy with a talking kangaroo, and instead Anthony Anderson and Jerry O’Connell.
This actually could be an interesting case. Studios sometimes make changes to movies after putting out their initial teaser trailer, or even after a full trailer gets released. Should they be forced to keep in everything in those trailers, should audiences just learn that trailers aren’t always accurate, or can studios adopt some sort of disclai—seek $5 million in damages—oh, fuck that noise.
I’m surprised no one here is mentioning the Infinity War trailer (Hulk in Wakanda). Marvel seems to plan to continue to put misleading stuff in their big event film trailers. How does this affect that?
It wouldn’t effect it because the actor was still in the movie. You could probably try to split hairs and say no one cared about Bruce being in it, we wanted the Hulk.. but following what the judge said it wouldnt matter. Additionally Ana De Armas was a much bigger part of the movie as opposed to a scene with hulk being cut.
I think the size of the damages are because it’s a class action, which means they are seeking damages on behalf of the entire potential class of people who were duped into renting the movie. I don’t think the plaintiffs are claiming they were actually damaged to the tune of $5 million, but that many thousands of people had collective damages that add up to $5 million.
Maybe, but assuming a rental cost of roughly $5 to view the movie, they’re assuming a million fans rented the movie with the expectation of seeing Ana de Armas and felt cheated out of their money because she wasn’t in the film. That strikes me as, shall we say, a bit of an overreach.And, admittedly, I did exaggerate my reaction for comic effect. To join the class action lawsuit about my online misrepresentations in attempts to make rather poor jokes, contact the law firm of Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe.
I mean, it’s a complaint, it is standard practice to stick a big number as potential damages, in part to avoid prejudicing the amount they can actually receive later. Who knows, they might get into discovery and find out there was huge anticipation among the massive De Armas Army for her plot line and appearance in this movie. I don’t really think so either, but no point limiting yourself at the pleading stage, know what I’m saying? Any ways, appreciate the joke(s). Merry Xmas if that’s your bag, merry weekend otherwise.
You always ask for some absurdly high “damages” number.It’s so that, when the defense attorney makes a counteroffer, it’s more in line with what you actually want. You start at $5M, and you settle for two free tickets and $25 gift card at the concessions stand…….and the remaining $4.9M goes to the lawyers.
What about movies that create stuff specifically for the trailers?
That wasn’t created specially for the trailer, they just reshot the entire third act and that part wasn’t left in.
On one hand, some trailers do look like they’re intentionally misleading, and it’s a good thing that they can be held accountable.
On the other hand, the facts of this specific case are
silly. I’m sure Universal didn’t know de Armas’ role was going to get
cut when they hired her. What are you supposed to do when a role is cut
after a trailer has already been released? And in this day and age, can you really pretend you’re a fan of an actress if you didn’t know her role has been removed from a film? “Yesterday” was talked about enough for a true fan to be aware of this. These fans were seemingly unaware that she wasn’t mentionned in any review and that her name wasn’t on the poster…
Whether it was reasonable of them to rent the movie expecting to see De Armas in reliance on the trailers will be fleshed out based on the facts developed in discovery, and presented at trial. That is what litigation is for. This ruling just says that the case can go forward because the facts in the complaint, if true, constitute a valid legal claim. If a studio releases a trailer that ends up giving a false impression of what people will get from a movie, and people go to see the movie in reliance on what that trailer showed, they may be legally liable for false advertising, because that’s what that is! Off the top of my head I can think of a number of things studios can do to protect themselves from lawsuits in these situations. Disclaimers (the typical refuge of the advertising scoundrel) on trailers, especially early trailers, that the film is still in production and scenes/characters may be cut. Then people couldn’t say they saw the movie in reasonable reliance on that trailer. Studios could wait to release trailers until the production process is further along. Similarly, while obviously things can change throughout the production process, surely the creative team has a good idea what scenes and characters are essential to a movie and will stay in, and which are more tangential and subject to getting cut…only include the former scenes in the trailer.
Similarly, while obviously things can change throughout the production
process, surely the creative team has a good idea what scenes and
characters are essential to a movie and will stay in, and which are more tangential and subject to getting cut…only include the former scenes in the trailer.
If they have such a good idea, why did they spend more money casting a known name when they could have hired a cheaper actress? So many movies are built in the editing room.
And this movie was changed because of test audiences, which is pretty darn late. They had a version of the film with de Armas that they thought was ready or near ready to be released.
If they have such a good idea, why did they spend more money casting a known name when they could have hired a cheaper actress? So many movies are built in the editing room.I don’t know the answer to this question or why it’s relevant. My point is, I’m sure a 4 minute trailer can be constructed out of parts of the movie the creative team is pretty certain are going to make the final cut, and use characters they can be pretty sure are going to remain in the movie.And this movie was changed because of test audiences, which is pretty darn late. They had a version of the film with de Armas that they thought was ready or near ready to be released.
That isn’t consumers’ fault.
My point is, I’m sure a 4 minute trailer can be constructed out of parts
of the movie the creative team is pretty certain are going to make the
final cut, and use characters they can be pretty sure are going to
remain in the movie.
My point is, they did. Sometimes, people are pretty sure and they’re wrong.
That isn’t consumers’ fault.
No one said it was.
My point is, they did. Sometimes, people are pretty sure and they’re wrong.They didn’t though. They put an entire subplot in the trailer that ended up getting cut. They could have had that four minute trailer without Ana De Armas. It’s not like the choice was “Trailer with Ana De Armas” and “No trailer.” Quite obviously the Ana De Armas thing is not that important to the movie if it ended up getting cut out entirely, so they could have done without putting her in the trailer at all.No one said it was.
Then why should consumers have to pay for the studios fuck up?
Quite obviously the Ana De Armas thing is not that important to the movie if it ended up getting cut out entirely, so they could have done without putting her in the trailer at all.
What qualifies as “important” to you in a romantic comedy? A character being in a failed relationship before being with the character it’s meant to is a perfectly serviceable template that has been used many times before.We’re going to have to agree to disagree and leave it at that because I am no closer to agreeing with you than when we first began. I think that trailers focusing exclusively on the main thread because any subplot technically has a chance of being cut would increase the proportion of trailers that basically spoil the whole film in 3 minutes. Occurrences where a big name actor is hired, is featured in a trailer, and is subsequently cut entirely are extremely rare, and for once, I don’t think it was the studio’s intention to deceive people. If what it takes for a trailer to have scenes that the filmmakers are pretty sure will be in the film, as opposed to “totally sure with no room for error”, if what it takes is to have those scenes is to have a disclaimer at the beginning like they do for video games, then please do that instead.
Important enough that you know it’s not going to get cut! Do you honestly think it’s that hard to find four minutes of compelling footage that’s not going to get cut and that doesn’t spoil the film? I don’t think the choice was between including this footage and not having a trailer that didn’t spoil the film. If what happened here is extremely rare (and it is extremely nice of you to give them so much benefit of the doubt!) then what is the big deal about this lawsuit? They can pay up to the consumers they harmed and move on, it’s not the end of the world. I also don’t think studios are entitled to 100% legal certainty.
Me? I’d like to see this ruling used against Mr. Zsasz Zaslav for screwing over HBO Max subscribers by cancelling everything that’s on the service!Mostly, I just want to see his Reality TeeVee Scum ass get sued so he gets fired, and Warner Brothers can go back to making real movies and television, not the garbage he turned out on Discovery….
I’m suddenly kind of upset that Jyn Erso didn’t see a TIE fighter rising up at the end of that catwalk
Wait so we can get in on that Disney money by suing them for that Infinity War trailer with Hulk running amongst them in Wakanda? Everyone c’mon we struck gold.
Who would take those fine titties off the screen? Screw Universal
I’m sorry…they cut Ana de Armas from the film? No wonder that film sucked donkeyballs. You do not cut the actress my granny refers to as “that adorable wee Cuban lassie” from a film and expect it to do well. My granny might just have to cut a bitch up for that crime against humanity. Also – they cut de Armas and, erm, kept Lily James? For the love of Satan’s swinging dong, why?
“The Court’s holding is limited to representations as to whether an actress or scene is in the movie, and nothing else,”Strangely old fashioned and gender specific language there.
This is very amazing.. Great post Gabrielle Sanchez
Regards: Playfurn
I’m sorry the judge didn’t also rule that any and all references to James Corden must be followed by “… of all people” in perpetuity.
They promised Ana DeArmis and gave us James Corden…of all people.
Would the plaintiffs settle for Ana DeArmis just showing up in the courtroom for ten minutes? Pretty sure the studio might be able to arrange that.
jordan_peele_sweating_profusely.gifI love Jordan Peele’s movies and think his trailers are genius, but holy shit if “their main objective is to entice prospective viewers by showcasing the film’s stars and major plot points” then he might start getting worried. He’s showcasing the stars, that’s for sure, but watch the trailer for NOPE and tell me if it conveyed anything about that movie. I love how it gave us something completely different, but hot damn was that trailer for a completely different film.
Honestly, probably in a case like that, the argument about trailers being expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, in large part because I think courts are going to be hesitant to get into arguments like “The trailer promised a Hitchcock-esque psychological suspense thriller, but Plaintiff was disappointed when the final movie was more of a Michael Bay action blockbuster.”I’m also curious about your take on the Nope trailer. I just rewatched one on YouTube, and it seemed like it was advertising the movie I ended up seeing.
All legal considerations aside, this is just plain stupid. The legal system is too freely accessible to every half-wit with a grievance and too easily abused.
“The Court’s holding is limited to representations as to whether an actress *OR SCENE* is in the movie, and nothing else,” the judge writes. This is actually the more notable part of the decision (and badly reasoned by the judge, I think), because trailers forever and always have featured scenes and lines that do not make the final cut. (Off the top of my head I think an early Rogue One trailer had a line like “This is a rebellion, isn’t it? Well, I rebel!”, but no such scene made the film. But there are countless examples.) They’re – especially early teaser trailers – assembled long before release and a lot of editing and shooting is still to come. Whole scenes and plotlines will be trimmed and excised. If each of those is grounds to sue….
I don’t have a particularly strong opinion about this particular case, but just because companies have been doing something for a long time doesn’t mean that practice should be blessed by a court. As far as scenes, who knows. I don’t think this judge is purporting to establish a bright line rule that anytime anything shown in any trailer for a movie is cut from that movie, consumers have been damaged. But you can probably imagine a scenario where you can feel duped by a movie trailer. There isn’t any reason for false advertising laws not to apply to movie trailers, and if a trailer creates a false impression that leads people to pay for the movie under false pretenses, the studio should pay up for that. I don’t like slippery slope arguments very much. I am sure that the army of lawyers deep pocketed studios can summon will be able to stop expansion of this principle well before it gets to “an inconsequential line in the trailer got cut and now the studio is on the hook for $100 million” or whatever they’re pretending to be worried about. I’ve always thought it’s silly to be against legal rulings that protect consumers at the expense of companies engaged in shady practices because of speculation that it might enable some future absurd case. That’s not really how the legal system works in this country, it is wildly stacked against consumers.
I am kind of split here because I do understand movies can change after the trailer is made, but also from the trailer it seemed like Ana De Armas and the love tension was going to be a significant part of the movie. At the minimum you’d think they would have put out there in blogs or whatnot she got cut? I’ve seen it done many times. Also I am surprised they got so far into the movie before doing test screenings and finding out people hated that plot point
$5 million? Sheeeeee-it, here’s like 20 bucks and a coupon for some microwavable popcorn.
I know for this case they’re saying it only applies to whether an actor appears in a film or not, but I could see it applying to other cases as well. Marvel often uses deliberately modified shots in their trailers to keep plot secrets or even shots that don’t get used at all. Many other films have shots that don’t have final VFX or stuff that gets cut that changes the plot.
I hope they are rewarded the price of admission and a stern fuck off. This is the stupidest waste of our courts’ time I’ve heard of in 58 years.
yet again more proof that everything James Corden touches turns to shite.
Now that is what the lawsuit should be about—not that they cut Ana De Armas out, but that they persisted in leaving James Corden in.“Your Honor, they got that oleaginous asshole James Corden in my movie! I’m suing $5M for the pain and suffering of having to watch him on-screen for two hours!”
How did the plaintiff have so much free time that they’re disappointed with a movie and decide I’m going to make this one of the main missions of the next 1-2 years of my life to take corrective action about it
…anyone want to take bets on whether the casting director wished they could switch the primary and secondary romantic interests? (No slight intended to Ms. James – who was certainly a higher profile actress at the time – but I don’t think people would have started a lawsuit over her role getting cut.)
“Congratulations to all Ana de Armas fans! 🎉 This is a well-deserved victory for the passionate community that stands behind her talent and charisma. It’s heartening to see the power of dedicated fans who came together to protect their beloved actress and ensure that her image is rightfully represented in Yesterday’s trailers. Let this win serve as a reminder that united voices can make a difference. Kudos to everyone involved in the lawsuit and a special shout-out to Ana de Armas for continuously captivating us with her incredible performances. Can’t wait to see her shine in Yesterday!” 💫✨🎬regards :kids furniture