Fans suing over actresses' deleted scenes (1 Viewer)

[livefromDC]

Wife and I watched Blade Runner 2049 a few days ago. Stunning indeed. Haven't seen Knives Out yet. Gonna add that to my viewing list.

Watching "Knives Out" should be the next thing you do.

 

[livefromDC]

For the record, I'd just like to point out that Lily James is also no slouch. She was great as the love interest in this movie.

 

[Poison]

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

Here’s a funny story. Apparently Steven Seagal thought his role in Executive Decision was a co-starring role too. So much so that he held up filming when he actually read the script and realised his character was scripted to die.

Executive Decision (1996) - FAQ - IMDb

Executive Decision (1996) - Top questions and answers about Executive Decision (1996)

m.imdb.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

I think this case is stupid, but it's ridiculous for the studio to claim that a trailer is an "artistic work" and not a commercial for the movie, that's exactly what it is
==========================================================================

Two Ana de Armas fans can continue their lawsuit against Universal Pictures after a federal judge ruled Tuesday that movie studios can be sued over false advertising in film trailers.

Conor Woulfe, who is from Maryland, and Peter Michael Rosza of San Diego County, California, each paid $3.99 to rent Yesterday on Amazon Prime because de Armas appeared in the film’s trailer. They were disappointed to find she wasn’t in the film and have since January been pursuing a $5 million lawsuit as representatives of a class of movie customers who were deceived by the trailer.

On Tuesday, they cleared a hurdle when US District Judge Stephen Wilson issued an order rejecting Universal’s attempt to dismiss the entire case.

Universal had argued that the lawsuit should be thrown out because movie trailers should be protected under the First Amendment. They called the trailer an “artistic, expressive work” that conveys the theme of the film — not simply a commercial that would be covered by rules against false advertising.............

A Judge Said Movie Studios Can Be Sued For False Advertising In Trailers After A Pair Of Ana De Armas Fans Filed A Federal Lawsuit

 

[Optimus Prime]

A US district judge has thrown out a $5m lawsuit from two movie fans who accused Universal Studios of tricking people into watching Yesterday by featuring actor Ana de Armas – who had been cut from the final movie – in the film’s trailer.

In a class action suit filed last year, Peter Michael Rosza of San Diego and Conor Woulfe of Maryland said they paid $3.99 each to watch the Danny Boyle romantic comedy on Amazon Prime, only to discover that De Armas was not in the film.

Accordingly, “such consumers were not provided with any value for their rental or purchase”, the suit read, with the two men suing for $5m over false advertisement, unjust enrichment and violation of unfair competition.

District judge Stephen Wilson previously ruled that Woulfe and Rosza’s suit could proceed, saying trailers were commercial speech and subject to laws around honest advertising.

But in an order dated 28 August, Wilson tossed the suit out, agreeing with Universal that the case was a “self-inflicted injury” after Woulfe revealed in an amendment he had rented Yesterday a second time in 2023, this time on Google Play. The plaintiff explained he did so to claim new “misrepresentations on Google”, as De Armas was listed as a cast member in Yesterday in Google searches.

As he had already watched Yesterday on Prime, it was “not plausible” that Woulfe could claim the film had been misrepresented to him, the judge ruled, adding that the plaintiff’s own case had “expressly stated that De Armas ‘is not and was never in the publicly released version’ of Yesterday”.

“Plaintiff Woulfe has offered no explanation as to why he believed that version of Yesterday they accessed on Google Play would be a different version of the movie they accessed on Amazon,” Wilson noted in the order.…….

‘A self-inflicted injury’: judge dismisses lawsuit claiming Yesterday trailer tricked Ana de Armas fans

Plaintiffs claimed that keeping the actor in the trailer for the Danny Boyle film but cutting her from the final product amounted to false advertising

www.theguardian.com

 

[Madmarsha]

A US district judge has thrown out a $5m lawsuit from two movie fans who accused Universal Studios of tricking people into watching Yesterday by featuring actor Ana de Armas – who had been cut from the final movie – in the film’s trailer.

In a class action suit filed last year, Peter Michael Rosza of San Diego and Conor Woulfe of Maryland said they paid $3.99 each to watch the Danny Boyle romantic comedy on Amazon Prime, only to discover that De Armas was not in the film.

Accordingly, “such consumers were not provided with any value for their rental or purchase”, the suit read, with the two men suing for $5m over false advertisement, unjust enrichment and violation of unfair competition.

District judge Stephen Wilson previously ruled that Woulfe and Rosza’s suit could proceed, saying trailers were commercial speech and subject to laws around honest advertising.

But in an order dated 28 August, Wilson tossed the suit out, agreeing with Universal that the case was a “self-inflicted injury” after Woulfe revealed in an amendment he had rented Yesterday a second time in 2023, this time on Google Play. The plaintiff explained he did so to claim new “misrepresentations on Google”, as De Armas was listed as a cast member in Yesterday in Google searches.

As he had already watched Yesterday on Prime, it was “not plausible” that Woulfe could claim the film had been misrepresented to him, the judge ruled, adding that the plaintiff’s own case had “expressly stated that De Armas ‘is not and was never in the publicly released version’ of Yesterday”.

“Plaintiff Woulfe has offered no explanation as to why he believed that version of Yesterday they accessed on Google Play would be a different version of the movie they accessed on Amazon,” Wilson noted in the order.…….

‘A self-inflicted injury’: judge dismisses lawsuit claiming Yesterday trailer tricked Ana de Armas fans

Plaintiffs claimed that keeping the actor in the trailer for the Danny Boyle film but cutting her from the final product amounted to false advertising

www.theguardian.com

I hope the legal fees weren't over $3.99 cos the advice was worth about $.02.

 

[bigdaddysaints]

I cannot remember the movie, but i remember Bruce Willis suing a production company because part of the deal of him being in the movie for cheap was to not bill him as a lead character but they still tried. Maybe it was Nobody's Fool?

 

[Optimus Prime]

I cannot remember the movie, but i remember Bruce Willis suing a production company because part of the deal of him being in the movie for cheap was to not bill him as a lead character but they still tried. Maybe it was Nobody's Fool?

Hadn't heard that but I know there was a similar issue with Robin Williams and Aladdin

 

[FullMonte]

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.

To be totally fair, though...she wasn't really a "big star" at the time. The only major film she had been in at that point was Blade Runner 2049.

 

[Saintman2884]

To be totally fair, though...she wasn't really a "big star" at the time. The only major film she had been in at that point was Blade Runner 2049.

She had been in a few relatively successful foreign, "indie" films like Knock, Knock a few years before (2015), but by the time of Blade Runner 2049, she was still mostly unknown to U.S. audiences. Knives Out was sort of her breakthrough role.