Woman Sues Over Misleading Movie Trailer; Wants To Make It A Class Action
from the our-litigious-society dept
Sure, we've all noted that various movie trailers may not be representative of the movie, but is that an illegal bait-and-switch? Sarah Deming apparently believes so, and somehow found a lawyer willing to sue over this awful deception (thanks to Will for sending this in). Her specific complaint? She expected the recently released movie Drive to be much more like The Fast and the Furious based on the trailer. You can see the trailer below:Oh, and to make it even better, she apparently would like to turn the whole thing into a class action lawsuit, so in case you, too, felt ripped off... This whole thing is so ridiculous, you almost wonder if it isn't a bad viral marketing campaign for Drive.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: drive, false advertising, fast and the furious, movie trailers, sarah deming
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Pirates!
Yeah baby... out troll that one! *dances jig* O yeah ... o yeah...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Count me in
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Typical
I can sympathize with the gal, but she should know better. If she'd downloaded the movie first she could see if it was any good--and then go to the theatre if it seemed like an awesome movie.
Well, that or like check Twitter for what people are saying.
Not hard, not hard at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Count me in
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In the UK
I'm all for getting a refund on a shitty movie, especially if the trailer misled me.
Might make the movie companies up their game....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: In the UK
I hope this sort of thing isn't going to become commonplace, however. The whole problem with misleading trailers/posters is generally a problem with marketing departments trying to force movies into pre-determined boxes rather than coming up with something creative. I've already seen too many movies get buried at the box office because the marketing drones didn't know what to do. I don't need to see more incentives to only invest in cookie cutter crap, thank you very much. If you want to see them "up their game", the last thing you want is for them to stop making anything their marketers can't handle.
I know a number of people who think that Drive was excellent, but the crowd I talk to tend to be the ones who watched it because they said "oooh, a new Nicolas Winding Refn film", not "oooh, it looks like Fast And Furious 27".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Abduction
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So I never felt so cheated and stabbed in the back going to a movie after seeing the trailer when I realized it was far from the truth, that there was very few CGI (all of which I saw in the trailer) and adventure entertainment compared to Narnia, and that it was in fact a sad dramatic movie.
IMDB lists it as Adventure/Drama/Family, while I agree with Drama and Family, I don't see how it can be listed as Adventure.
The trailer being so misleading, I would love to this this class action lawsuit gain some traction and set the movie studios straight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lastly, I saw Lake Placid in a movie theater many years ago. The film burned out just as the old lady was walking towards the shore, at the end of the movie. There weren't many people in the theater at that showing and when I told the manager he just said 'yeah sometimes that happens.' I didn't ask for my money back but a free pass or discount would have been nice.
So as ridiculous as this lady looks for suing the studio I am 100% behind her.
To me it's like fast food places that show one thing in their advertisements but serve you something else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Judges? Books? Covers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Movies are all kinda buyer beware, aren't they?
Never, and we don't expect them too, either. That's why we read reviews or wait for a friend to see it first. Cripes, suing for a poorly spent twelve bucks?
Look, lady, if truth in advertising applied to entertainment, the whole industry would collapse. And then what are you going to do on your next first date? Talk?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
On the Flip
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: In the UK
You'd probably be luckier suing them for calling the orange sludge they serve 'Nacho Cheese', since its certainly not cheese, and those probably aren't nachos....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Categories could be:
Most Accurate Representation of Movie Contents
Most Effective Use of Voiceover
Most Minimal Use of Spoiler Footage
and most important for comedies...
Does Not Include Will Ferrell
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So it was Anti-Semetic too? Of course it's a brilliant tactic, after all, if the lawsuit gets shot down, the courts are also Anti-Semetic!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Movie advertising
I'd see a movie come down, promoted as a romance. Then, a month later, it would be slanted as a comedy, then an adventure flick.
Same movie, just trying to find a way to get people to show up.
No, the ads have nothing to do with the actual movie. Is there anyone out there who doesn't know this by now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pirates!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So they fooled you into going and fooled me into not going. Funny old world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That was a bad one. Very deceptive. But the movie was pretty good. We liked it, even though it was very very sad.
And remember that trailer for Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events which made the movie seem like it was a Harry Potter type of movie? That also should have resulted in a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Count me in
I'm somewhat amused, because my friend that recommended it to me said "don't watch the trailer, it's the whole movie", and this woman thinks it's deceptive.
It's pretty clear from the trailer it's going to be violent and have some serious ass-kicking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In a world...
Deming, et al, coming soon to court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Typical
Giant robot testicles. Please kick me in the head and make them go away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If you haven't read the details of modern class action lawsuits here's the bottom line: some group of lawyers makes bank (several million), a single individual who "represents" the class gets some money (a few thousand to tens of thousands), and the class itself gets some BS that's not even worth real money (voucher for services worth less than $100 each).
Guess who this lady is in that setup?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Pirates!
Those track pants were hideous that the villain wore...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I do know that sometimes a deleted scene will be used on the trailer. (and by sometimes I mean often)
Another good misrepresentation of a movie would be Executive Decision, with Kurt Russell and Steven Segal. They made it sound like Segal was the star, when if fact he had a very small role.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm suing Techdirt
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I could be behind her if
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pirate!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I was also mislead
I intend to sue for the cost of the cinema ticket AND the box of tissues I brought with me (I have a COLD...don't look at me like I'm some sort of pervert)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What else can we sue about that lies to us?
Funny Food Advertisements vs Reality - but true:
http://eldusto.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/advertisements-vs-reality.jpg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in thread ]
makes sense to me
I say go ahead with tihs, just because it's normal practice in the industry doesn't mean it's not misleading.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It doesn't mean much as an audience member, but the reason is that trailers are often cut well before the movie is finished (some movies are only finished a few days before release).
So, since the final cut hadn't been made, the people cutting the trailer don't know exactly what will be in it. The score might not have been written yet, and effects might not be complete. It's not necessarily deliberately misleading, but I can understand how it's annoying.
It would be better, of course, if the studios waited till they had a final product before they tried selling it, but that's not how Hollywood works...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What else can we sue about that lies to us?
The taco on the left is therefore clearly false advertising, unless it's actually legal to pile all of the meat and cheese on one half of a taco in advertisements but not in the actual product.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What else can we sue about that lies to us?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
To put it bluntly, false advertising is false advertising -- period.
The fact that America pretty much lets ANY claims in advertising go unchecked (anyone else seen that horrid "I researched high fructose corn syrup . . . and now I've got one less thing to worry about" ad where they specifically imply there are no health risks associated with HFCS?) doesn't change the fact that a merchant of any tangible or intangible good should ensure that the service they represent is similar to the service they render.
Now I'm not saying that ambiguous or "obscure" movie previews are a problem -- I have personally enjoyed several movie preview campaigns where the actual premise (or setting) of the movie is completely unclear until one actually goes to see it . . . but in those cases, it's obvious that the previews are just to tantalise interest -- in the cases where one cultivates a specific impression about a movie, that impression should be accurate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Judges? Books? Covers?
This is like unto reading the back of a book where it details an "action-packed murder/suspense thriller" (or whatever) and it's actually a very droll romance where someone mentions "that murder down the street" for all of one paragraph.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Movies are all kinda buyer beware, aren't they?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I tend to hold that any advertisement which isn't immediately and obviously verifiable as correct should result in a hefty fine -- but I also realise that's never going to happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: In a world...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I could be behind her if
The obvious example is taking all two minutes of action scenes in a movie and remixing them together into the preview - causing any reasonable person to mistake a historical drama with one bar-fight for some kind of action flick.
Even worse are things like Bridge to Terabithia, where they took all the animated sequences and show those exclusively; anyone who hadn't read the book would be entirely justified in expecting a whimsical animated fantasy movie when it's . . not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If that's the case
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Didn't they do this already?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmkVWuP_sO0
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Most boring movie ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
how about
"not actual movie footage" displayed prominently at the bottom.
Or for scenes that combine elements from two seperate parts of the movie put "some steps omitted"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
used semi-trucks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
She may have a point, but to actually sue and try to make a class action suit out of this is a joke.
P.S I haven't actually seen Drive, so I have no idea if the trailer and movie are similar... :)
Nathan Payne - Trailer Geek
[ link to this | view in thread ]