Movie fans can sue over misleading trailer, US judge rules

[Bobby Henderson]

IIRC the "in a world" guy that did so many trailer voice-overs had been dead for some time.

What I refer to as the "style" of contemporary trailers is the kinds of edits and sound effects they've just completely done to death. I couldn't help but start laughing at the beginning of the first Mission: Impossible, Dead Reckoning trailer. Fade into one shot, fade to black, fade into another shot, fade to black, fade into another shot, fade to black. Do that again and again while there's some ominous line of dialog being repeated from a scene. That sight gag has been done to death in so many trailers before. Or how about the rapid strobo-stutter edit common to so many horror movie trailers and action movie trailers as well? They have the same piece of noisy whoosh audio stutter edited the same way. It's all a bunch of fucking clip art. I guess the marketing people have run out of ideas. I'd have more respect for them if they just created a movie trailer cut normally where the edit style wasn't calling attention to itself so badly. The beat the audience over the head with the same old shit.

I hardly buy any movies on disc anymore. The main reason is so many modern movies are worth watching only one time and that's it. Another issue is most retail movie discs are bare bones products almost devoid of any real bonus content. Umpteen years ago I grew pretty annoyed that movie trailers were not being included as extras on many retail movie discs when they were a standard item when DVD was new. If I do buy a movie on Blu-ray discs now it doesn't bother me if the teasers and trailers aren't included.

[Mike Blakesley]

At CinemaCon, I get numb to the trailers after a while, so I invented a little game to see if there are any shots more than 2 seconds long in a trailer. It's pretty amazing when you look at almost any trailer and start counting the seconds with every scene change -- rarely will you get past 2 seconds and I'll bet there are no trailers any more that have a shot that lasts more that 5 seconds. This little game is way more fun than watching the trailer itself.

The other thing that I find hilarious is the "boom" sound. You know the sound. They show a scene for dramatic effect and then BOOM in the soundtrack, whereupon they show the next thing that's even more dramatic. Some trailers ever start off with that BOOM. Most of the quick-fade type of trailers that Bobby describes above will have the BOOM accompanying every fadeout.

[Bobby Henderson]

I imagine the marketing departments and production companies who produce these teasers and trailers have a shorthand language for every type of editing sight gag and audio edit sound gag. That way they can type down a few fast notes for churning out a "new version" of a movie's trailer. I wonder what term they use for the "THOOOOMMMM" over-bearing sub-bass sound that's dropped into the mix on any notable edit. The stuff they do is so repetitive and derivate that it wouldn't surprise me if studio executives were asking for some Artificial Intelligence software bots to just auto-generate the shit.

I could give these trailer creators some credit for us not having to see the "get ready for the ride of your life" tagline anymore. But I won't. They only deserve credit for stopping a bad editing habit before it sparks exasperation and anger in viewers. I think they only stopped using that particular tagline is because even they would think, "JFC" and roll their eyes when seeing it.

[Randy Stankey]

IIRC the "in a world" guy that did so many trailer voice-overs had been dead for some time.

Don Lafontaine (1940-2008) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_LaFontaine

Don_Lafontaine.jpg

[Martin McCaffery]

Well, if this lawsuit is successful, I want to sue for releasing a directors cut of the movie after I paid full price at a theatre for a knowingly "inferior" product. Bait and Switch I tell ya, bait and switch.

[Jon Dent]

Don Lafontaine (1940-2008) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_LaFontaine

Don_Lafontaine.jpg

Still think one of the greatest Blockbuster commercials ever is when the customer asks what the movie is about and the clerk brings LaFontaine out from under the counter.

So now you can sue for a misleading trailer? WTF? Most advertising is misleading in some regard, as I'm sure millions of teenage boys discovered when using Axe body spray didn't immediately surround them with bikini clad women.

[Martin McCaffery]

Paging Joe Izuzu,, Paging Joe Izuzu...

[Randy Stankey]

... I'm sure millions of teenage boys discovered when using Axe body spray didn't immediately surround them with bikini clad women.

When I was younger, it was a cologne called "Hai Karate."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hai_Karate

They had several commercials on TV where a guy would use the cologne and women would attack him so much that he had to use "karate" to fend them off.

The tagline was: "Hai Karate! Be careful how you use it!"

Can cologne really attract desirable members of the opposite sex?
Can frogs really say, "Bud! Wize! Er!" ??
No! But it is very clear that the advertiser is using humor to sell the product.
Any reasonably intelligent person should be able to understand that.
That's where the difference comes.

Would a reasonably intelligent person be able to tell, from watching the trailer, whether Ana de Armas is actually in the movie or that it's a "dramatic portrayal" of what the movie "might" be like when it is finally released?

All arguments of free speech or artistic license go out the window if a reasonable person can't tell.

The way I see it, No! A reasonable person WOULDN'T be able to tell.
I think the studio IS at fault, here.

But, on the flip side, I don't see why this should be such a big deal. Advertising is little more than creative bullshitting. Everybody knows or should know that!

Haven't you ever seen the old TV show, "Bewitched?"

The husband, "Darren," (an advertising exec.) was continually having to explain his wife's and in-laws' magical shenanigans by passing them off as advertising stunts.

That was in the 1970s. I'm sure we can find similar examples of popular media that revolve around the same theme from even before that.

I'm sure that the studio can (and will) use this as a way to explain the movie trailer (advertisement) in a similar light.

But, still, I think they were wrong. However, I think that the solution should be (or should have been) to give a refund, an apology and promise to be more careful in the future.

Or, maybe a statement in the green band (in fine print ) to the effect: "This trailer is a pre-release advertisement. The final release of this movie may differ."

Even then, in legal circles, most disclaimers only offer limited protection, depending on circumstance.

Regardless of how you see this case, I think it's clear that the studio fucked up and I think they should have to answer for it.

What that answer should be is up to interpretation.