Fans suing over actresses' deleted scenes (1 Viewer)

Optimus Prime

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 18, 1998
Messages
21,843
Reaction score
44,567
Offline
I've noticed that scenes in the trailer weren't in the actual movies before.

I went to see Executive Decision expecting it to be a Steven Segal starring role

The first trailers for Terminator 2 led me to believe that Arnold was the bad guy again

I've been misled by trailers before

I didn't know that filing a lawsuit was an option

=================================

This past July, Conor Woulfe sat at his home in Maryland browsing a streaming platform in search of a movie to watch.

When the trailer for “Yesterday” popped up, Woulfe, 38, hit play. The 2019 musical comedy imagines the life of a struggling musician who realizes he’s the only person on Earth who can remember the Beatles after waking up in an alternate timeline where they never existed.

Beguiled by actress Ana de Armas, a Cuban and Spanish actress who has starred in “Blade Runner 2049,” “Knives Out” and “No Time to Die,” Woulfe rented the movie for $3.99 and watched it that same day, court records state.

But when it was over, Woulfe regretted his movie selection. The actress, according to a new lawsuit, did not appear in a single frame of the film.

Peter Michael Rosza, another man who watched the trailer before renting the movie in October, says he experienced the same disappointment when the film ended. Just like the film’s plot, where the Beatles didn’t exist, the actress was nowhere to be found, Rosza, 44, lamented.

Now, both men are suing Universal Pictures in a class-action federal lawsuit, alleging the studio knowingly distributed “false,” “deceptive” and “misleading” advertisements and promotions for “Yesterday.” Despite being publicized as a substantial character in the film, de Armas never appeared in it, according to the suit, which was filed last week in the U.S. District Court of Central California..............

 
They have a good point, false advertisement. Not sure it's worth sueing over but, maybe it'll at least force the studios to be more forthright in there advertisements of upcoming movies. After all, if a ketchup commercial claims to cure psoriasis, and it doesn't, same thing.
 
I've been misled by trailers before

I didn't know that filing a lawsuit was an option

=================================

It's basically a deceptive advertising claim. State equivalents may vary but the federal claim is basically that there is a material representation made by company that induces a non-trivial amount of people to buy the product that ends up being false or contrary to the representation made, thus injuring those buyers whose motivation to buy was based on the representation.

I think with movie content, the vast majority of butt-hurt customers aren't going to have something objectively false or misleading. I suppose that here it could actually rise to that level if the movie's advertising clearly indicated that Ana de Armas was in it when she wasn't. I don't know if that's actually true, and I don't think merely being in a trailer qualifies as a representation about the product, but just looking at the allegations as they are stated. But did this impact enough people to meet the standard? Seems unlikely.

But even if it does, this is one of those things where its far more trouble than it's worth. Class action lawsuits for very low-value injuries (you'd never recover more than what you paid to see the movie - minus fees and costs) typically result in fees to the attorneys and very minimal recovery for the class members. So for example, the guy who paid $3.99 gets $1.79 back.
 
Last edited:
Last of Us Two did a voice swap on its trailer in order to conceal story line. They got so much flack for that story line too but really the only thing I had a problem with was the trailer deception.
 
They have a good point, false advertisement. Not sure it's worth sueing over but, maybe it'll at least force the studios to be more forthright in there advertisements of upcoming movies. After all, if a ketchup commercial claims to cure psoriasis, and it doesn't, same thing.

So looking at the Variety article - the filmmaker responded to the claims. Her scenes were cut in the final editing process because they just didn't fit with the shape the film had otherwise taken.

De Armas was to appear as Roxane, a love interest who is introduced to Malik on the set of James Corden’s talk show. Malik was to serenade her with a rendition of George Harrison’s song “Something.” But the scenes with de Armas’ character were removed.

Richard Curtis, the screenwriter, explained to Cinema Blend that audiences did not like the idea of Malik straying from his primary love interest in the film, portrayed by Lily James.

“That was a very traumatic cut, because she was brilliant in it. I mean really radiant,” Curtis told the outlet. “You know, it’s one of those things where it’s some of our favorite scenes from the film, but we had to cut them for the sake of the whole.”


The allegations are that she was in the trailer and that's what motivated their purchase. Trailers are often made well before the final editing process. Unless there's some other evidence that the studio was using her to lure viewers, I don't see how having an actor in a trailer meets the element that the business is making a material representation about some characteristic of the product.



 
Long way to go for being disappointed about not getting a fap session. Imagine their dismay at finding out buying a dinner for a lady doesn't guarantee coitus.

Slow down - that would first require that they could successfully obtain a date.
 
I've seen "Yesterday" 2 or 3 times. Really good movie. I had to watch the trailer to figure out what this lawsuit was all about. So yes, the trailer does include this actress. She gets very little showing in the trailer, unlike Hamesh Patel and Lily James. I can see how they may feel deceived by her presence in the trailer, but the trailer focuses more on leads Patel and James. That said, I'd like to see the director's uncut version.
 
Ana de Armas is a goddess. Arguably the most beautiful woman in the world. I intentionally watch movies that she plays in to marvel at her perfectness. So yeah…I completely understand the frustration. But in reality…they should just get their money back on the movie.
 
Last edited:
Ana de Armas is a goddess. Arguably the most beautiful woman in the room. I intentionally watch movies that she plays in to marvel at her perfectness. So yeah…I completely understand the frustration. But in reality…they should just get their money back on the movie.
supposedly she is to be the lead in a John Wick spin-off called 'ballerina'
 
Ana de Armas is a goddess. Arguably the most beautiful woman in the room. I intentionally watch movies that she plays in to marvel at her perfectness.
she is one of a handful of actresses that meeting in person, would leave me gaga.

Her and Marion Cotillard - id be absolutely smitten
 
I think it’s an interesting case. On the one hand, I think the people should just get over it, but on the other hand marketing a movie as though there’s a big star in it when he/she isn’t in it does seem totally nefarious.
 
Oh I didn’t go because of him

I went because of Kurt Russell and Halle Berry (and I do like the movie)

But I still thought It was an action buddy movie like Tango & Cash
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom