Suicide Squad Fan Suing Studio For 'False Advertising' Over Lack of Joker Scenes (independent.co.uk)

An anonymous reader writes from a report via The Independent: Reddit user BlackPanther2016 has threatened to begin legal action against Warner Bros and DC Comics later this week, claiming that teasing Joker scenes in trailers that did not make the final film amounts to "unjust false advertising." The disgruntled superhero fan argued in a post on Movies subreddit that he should receive a refund after driving 300 miles to London to watch "specific scenes explicitly advertised in TV ads" only to leave feeling ripped off. He says he will file a lawsuit on August 11, with his "lawyer" brother leading the case. Part of his litigious post reads: "Suicide Squad trailers showcased several specific Joker scenes that I had to pay for the whole movie just so that I can go watch those specific scenes that Warner Bros/DC Comics had advertised in their trailers and TV spots. These scenes are: when Joker banged his head on his car window, when Joker says 'Let me show you my toys,' when Joker punches the roof of his car, when Joker drops a bomb with his face all messed up and says, 'Bye bye!' None of these scenes were in the movie." Last week, Suicide Squad fans petitioned to shut down rotten tomatoes over negative reviews.

Comments

Oh get over yourself you absurd man-child

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? This is a thing? Get laid, you translucent-skinned autistic super dork.

Re:Oh get over yourself you absurd man-child

[whargoul]

Careful. That may be one of the things he enjoys.

Re:Oh get over yourself you absurd man-child

[Desler]

Your chest?

Re:Oh get over yourself you absurd man-child

[davester666]

who doesn't like being dirged?

Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[MadCow42]

Half of me wants to say "grow the fuck up, you whiny little turd"... but the other half agrees that it's false advertising if those scenes were used to lure in audiences then not included in the film. If they're in the ad, then presumably they're some of the best / most enticing scenes... and to not include them seems like a bait and switch.

So, go get 'em, you whiny little turd. :)

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[sakono]

almost all trailers show footage or music that end up getting cut from the final film for various reasons. Kung fu hustle did it with Ball room blitz playing the the trailer for a fight scene but never in the movie. made the fight scene less awesome for me. Though I doubt any lawsuit would make it very far.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[MadCow42]

I don't know why I think there's a difference between visuals and sound track, but it just doesn't seem as "bait-and-switchy" to use different music in the promo than in the film. Maybe its because they use music with all forms of advertising, and I don't expect the music to come with the product. (When I buy a new car, I don't expect the music soundtrack from the commercial to be playing on the radio all the time, etc.). But if they show me that the car has airbags in the commercial, they'd better damn well come with the car. :)

To musicians maybe that's a double standard... I know.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[geek]

Half of me wants to say "grow the fuck up, you whiny little turd"... but the other half agrees that it's false advertising if those scenes were used to lure in audiences then not included in the film. If they're in the ad, then presumably they're some of the best / most enticing scenes... and to not include them seems like a bait and switch.

So, go get 'em, you whiny little turd. :)

They'll just add it to the directors cut and the kid will have no case.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[scamper_22]

Same feeling for me.

Our laws are only enforced if people take actions. Otherwise, the slope keeps getting slipperier.

There could be legit reasons for it. Maybe those joker scenes were in the movie, but were edited out. However if the deleted scenes are a key draw, it could still be valid depending on the case.

Who knows, they might find a smoking gun email where some exec says 'Just keep the Joker scenes in even if we cut them. Those stupid nerds will pay for anything'

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[MadCow42]

Yes, but in your example you actually got the cover with the Aztec cover art. It's part of the product you brought home with you.

However if the TV ad for that album featured thrash metal music, and the album was actually Zamfir then you'd have a bait-and-switch case.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[pr0fessor]

It will be in the sequel.... Disguised as a news broadcast running in the background of another scene.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[AmiMoJo]

This is a good thing, fake trailers that badly mis-represent the film should be strongly discouraged. The scenes were in the trailer and not even in the movie.

However, this guy is a twat. He's doing it wrong. In the UK you don't file a "lawsuit" over it. He needs to do the following:

1. Request a refund from the studio, including travel costs.
2. When they refuse, file a claim with Small Claims Court. You don't need a lawyer but it sounds like he needs one. A real one.
3. Eventually win back your £10 cinema ticket, travel costs and court fees. Total is likely to be less than £100, unless he went by train in which case maybe £200.

We don't have punitive damages and it's unlikely he would get much for "mental anguish" etc.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[Penguinisto]

Dunno; when you consider that most dating sites show nothing but fairly attractive people frequenting such sites, but reality dictates that the majority of humanity is uglier than a moldy sack of rusty hammers...

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[Calydor]

This wasn't a movie about the Joker, it was a movie in which there was (supposed to be) scenes including the Joker.

In the same vein, dating sites aren't exclusively filled with beautiful people, but there are beautiful people on the dating sites. Allegedly. .

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[tnyquist83]

It makes sense to use different music. Many adds use a single song for the entire ad while showing clips from the entire movie. A fight scene may be edited heavily for inclusion in an add, to the point where the original soundtrack may not match up properly.

To use the most recent Star Wars as an example, they played the familiar theme song through large portions of some ads. I can reasonably expect that this song will not be playing through the entire movie. What this person alleges they did with Suicide Squad would be the equivalent of cutting scenes of Kylo Ren and his triple-ended light saber, despite using that image heavily in the promotional material.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[mattack2]

But if they show me that the car has airbags in the commercial, they'd better damn well come with the car.

Kind of ironic, since similar things are exactly what they do. The fine print usually says "deluxe model shown" or something like that, and says that models vary.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[lucm]

reality dictates that the majority of humanity is uglier than a moldy sack of rusty hammers...

Maybe you should try traveling outside UK

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[tepples]

That'd be an apt analogy if cinemas were also playing Suicide Squad Deluxe. I have seen no evidence that they are.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[tepples]

The article implies something close to step 1 was already tried: "I told the theatre about this unjust act and said ‘I didn’t get what I came here to see, can I have my money back?’ They laughed at me and kicked me out. So I’m now taking this to court." Hence your step 2.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[phantomfive]

Eventually win back your £10 cinema ticket, travel costs and court fees.

That's kind of great, I don't think we have court fees awards for small claims in the US.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[Falos]

From what I heard, the people contracted to make the trailer were contacted (because it was very well received) to help redo the movie at the last minute. After the trailer's reception they wanted to shoot closer to big box blockbuster hit, they grabbed some scissors and tape and frantically tried to edit/reshoot their way towards more humor'n'noise big bang rather than gloom and grimdark, possibly keen on Marvel's recent Deadpool cashcow.

The Joker cuts may have been a result of just that.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[mattack2]

I wasn't referring to the movie trailer issue, just the car ad issue.

(Though I'm amazed people haven't known for a VERY long time that the trailer and actual movie differ.. I always like watching the trailer AFTER watching the movie, to see how different they are.)

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[Khyber]

"He needs to do the following:"

No, you need to read the fucking article and realize that's ALREADY what's happening.

And to boot, he's calling them into court to answer for violating These simple fucking advertising rules.

It's really sad that I seem to know your own country, and laws, better than you do. Maybe that's because I've done actual business there.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[TroII]

almost all trailers show footage or music that end up getting cut from the final film for various reasons.

That doesn't excuse this movie, it just means the rest of them ought to be sued, too. If you run a TV commercial for a buffet restaurant and it shows a big pile of crab legs, but your buffet doesn't actually sell crab legs, you should rightly expect some legal trouble. Why is a movie any different?

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[Dutch Gun]

I worry far more about the costs of an excessively litigious society than the alleged trauma of a first-world man-child over not seeing specific a few expected scenes in a movie.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[AthanasiusKircher]

There could be legit reasons for it. Maybe those joker scenes were in the movie, but were edited out.

It's pretty common knowledge (at least I thought it was) that trailers are often released before the final cut of a film is necessarily finished. The "rough cut" of many films is often much longer than the final cut, as the director and editor work through how to make everything work the best. Then they do test screening and maybe edit some more, etc.

Thus, I have NEVER had the expectation that every single scene in a trailer is necessarily in the final product. And over the years I've noticed a number of times this has happened. Moreover, there are clearly elements of trailers which are NOT in the final cut -- for example, the music is often some sort of generic scoring for parts of the trailer, sometimes from an older movie even. And pacing/juxtaposition of scenes is often played with in cutting trailers to "up the drama" or to "play for laughs" in a comedy in ways that don't happen quite the same way in the final cut.

Again, I thought this was all fairly obvious. The trailer is an ADVERTISEMENT, not a literal excerpt from the final product

However if the deleted scenes are a key draw, it could still be valid depending on the case.

Maybe. Then again, whenever I drink a Coors or a Budweiser or whatever,** I'm waiting for the magical bikini-clad women with water running off of them and wind in their hair to appear too... but somehow the final experience of drinking the beer isn't quite like the commercial. I doubt I could win a lawsuit against a beer company for "false advertising" in this case.

Basically, I don't think there's any actual or implied promise in the marketing of trailers which guarantees that ALL of the content in the trailer WILL be in the final film. Hell, the trailer for The Sixth Sense implied that Bruce Willis was alive, and the trailer for The Village implied that I might be able to see a decent horror flick set in an isolated community in the 19th century or something... except... oh crap, SPOILER ALERT...

Yeah... trailers don't necessarily tell you what's in the final product. How many times have you seen a comedy trailer and thought "that's gonna be AWESOME!" only to show up and realize they packed the only funny 90 seconds from the film into the trailer. Is that "false advertising"? Frankly, I think even that would be a stronger argument than what's going on in this case.

[**Note: I don't think I've drunk either one of those beers in the past five years. Perhaps the bikini-clad women now DO magically appear??]

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[Cassini2]

The trailers are shot before the film is. If the trailers don't fit the film as shot, its tough to include them.

Now, if the film companies actually waited for the film to be finished before advertising it, then they wouldn't get caught advertising something they couldn't deliver.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[AthanasiusKircher]

If you run a TV commercial for a buffet restaurant and it shows a big pile of crab legs, but your buffet doesn't actually sell crab legs, you should rightly expect some legal trouble.

Depends. I imagine most such commercials will contain a disclaimer in the "fine print" that appears at some point saying "Actual availability of food items may vary by time and location" or something like that. After all, restaurants do run out of food sometimes, particularly at all-you-can-eat buffets. So unless the commercial identified the crab legs as a specific selling point, they may be in the clear.

But yeah, your point is taken. It really depends on expectations, though. If you were to believe dozens of beer commercials I've seen in the past few decades, drinking several brands of beer should cause bikini-clad women to just show up and form a party around you or something. Can beer companies be sued for false representation if that doesn't happen when I crack open a Miller Light??

Obviously a "reasonable person" would realize that such scenarios are not an implied part of the actual experience of drinking that brand of beer, unlike your buffet example where someone might understand that.

The question then becomes: what is "essential" to a movie trailer and what should a "reasonable person" expect in terms of how much a trailer and a movie should agree? The New York Times ran a story a few years back about how different the National Treasure sequel trailers were from the movie. That's a pretty extreme case. The trailer for the movie In Bruges implies that it's a hilarious comedy; it most certainly is NOT. (It's a very dark drama, which just happens to have a couple wisecracking characters, but the use of music and cutting in the trailer clearly implies a different genre.) A similar thing could probably be said for the trailer to Lost in Translation . And then there are trailers like the one for Comedian which doesn't represent the film at all.

Moreover, I think it's pretty common knowledge (or at least so it could be argued in court) that trailers are often cut long before the final edit of the film -- and frequently they are put together by people who have only a tangential relationship to the film. It's incredibly common for trailers to contain at least some minor scenes in editing that aren't in the final cut. So unless you could prove that there was deliberate misrepresentation going on (e.g., a memo from a studio exec saying, "I know the director doesn't want those Joker scenes in, but we should add the to the trailer anyway..."), I really doubt there's a serious case to be made here.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[kevingolding2001]

I always like watching the trailer AFTER watching the movie, to see how different they are.)

You'll enjoy this (if you haven't already seen it).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[Chas]

No. Because just about every goddamn trailer since the history of trailers has come out using scenes that may or may not have been cut, or even scenes SPECIFICALLY filmed JUST for the trailer.

Bitching about it at this late date basically requires that you turn your fucking brain COMPLETELY off.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[ravenshrike]

Point of order, In Bruges is, in fact, a hilarious dark comedy.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[AmiMoJo]

Hands up, I only skimmed TFA. The "lawsuit" crap in the summary mislead me, it's likely he did file with Small Claims Court but there doesn't seem to be any solid information.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[thegarbz]

Because you're not selling scenes, you're selling an entire story. Quite the opposite from a restaurant which has a menu where you can pick and choose the experience.

If a trailer shows and action film and it turns out to be a soppy love comedy then you have grounds for false advertising.
If a trailer shows a thriller shows nothing but talking and it turns out to be a musical then you have grounds for false advertising.

For everything else we got exactly what we expect from the trailer. I saw scenes in the movie which featured every character in the trailer and more. I saw a movie about a bunch of criminals which were assembled into a taskforce to fight some kind of evil just as implied in the trailer. It was an action film with comedic moments, just like in the trailer.

Or should be be suing the studio behind the Jason Borne film because the words "You know his name" didn't feature flashed up in the movie against a black background?

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[thegarbz]

I disagree. This is not the menu of a restaurant. We are not sold a series of 2 second snips of frames that we can pick and choose when we want. What we are sold is a story, and that is what the trailer is advertising. The trailer advertised a film about a bunch of criminals who joined together in a taskforce to fight some evil force, oh and they make jokes. All of that (and more) featured in the movie, and if it didn't you got all those scenes in the trailer in 1080p on youtube for free.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[thegarbz]

This is a good thing, fake trailers that badly mis-represent the film should be strongly discouraged. The scenes were in the trailer and not even in the movie.

A 2 second snippet in the trailer not featuring in the movie does not mis-represent the film. In every way the film was exactly what I expected after seeing the trailer, a story about a bunch of criminals who are forced together into a team to fight some non-described evil (though likely the same evil that destroyed the subway in the trailer).

Now if I went to the movie and I got a musical, that would be a different matter.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[thegarbz]

Theathers typically have clear rules about this. The first 30min of a film is usually enough for someone to gauge whether it was worth the money or not. Walk out of the film in the first 1/4 because you've been grossly mislead and you get your money back no questions asked.

Watch it to the end, and you deserve to get laughed in the face.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[Anonymous Coward]

You should sue the Independent for falsely advertizing the article with a misleading headline.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[thegarbz]

These simple fucking advertising rules

The rules that say an advertisement should be representative of the final product. So an ad featuring a bunch of criminals that joined into a task force to fight some powerful evil was not representative of a movie that featuring a bunch of criminals that joined into a task force to fight some powerful evil?

Honestly this guy sounds like a mental case. The studio will make the argument I just made and it will rightfully get thrown out of court because quite frankly if this is false advertising we'd basically need to gut 90% of the advertising we see today.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[rizole]

Yeah but a lawsuit? Obvs I've not read tfa but I'd suggest starting with making a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[AmiMoJo]

The Joker's scenes were a major part of all the trailers and teasers, and if you look at the character profile videos they did he was one of the most prominent ones. And sure enough, they shot a lot of footage of him that was subsequently cut.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some warning that most of his material was cut, especially when these edits were made months ago.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[dywolf]

considering his sub 7 minutes of screen time, Leto's "method acting" just becomes even more of a pile of overrated and pretentious BS.
along with all the constant marketing reminders of its existence and the stupid stunts he pulled.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[AmiMoJo]

A better solution is to have strong consumer protection laws and bodies to enforce them. In the UK it should be Trading Standards investigating this movie.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[thegarbz]

It's a very dark drama

Errr no. In Bruges is a dark comedy. Actually quite a hilarious dark comedy. Learn the difference. Hell it even won a golden globe for Best actor in a motion picture musical or comedy, and it sure as hell isn't a musical.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[cdrudge]

I don't think we have court fees awards for small claims in the US.

It can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Check local rules. It can also matter if there was a contract that stipulates legal/collection fees are recoverable.

Re: Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[ganjadude]

to be fair, the scenes are in the free trailer so.... free?

also one of the biggest reasons i dont like trailers personally is because lately they have been way to long with way to much footage, Id Aactually be happy if they used footage not in the movie, to try and get you to watch the move

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[ganjadude]

wait for the blueray ultra delux collectors edition 2.5

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[sglewis100]

Also licensing plays into it sometimes. Same reason sometimes movies hit TV years later and can't use the same music from the theatrical release. Sometimes it's an availability issue, sometimes a cost issue.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[NoImNotNineVolt]

I worry far more about the costs of an excessively litigious society than the alleged trauma of a first-world man-child over not seeing specific a few expected scenes in a movie.

Translation: I worry far less about enforcement of our exceedingly complex legal code than I do about the immaturity of the plaintiff.

You're right, the rule of law is for suckers.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[meta-monkey]

Theathers typically have clear rules about this. The first 30min of a film is usually enough for someone to gauge whether it was worth the money or not. Walk out of the film in the first 1/4 because you've been grossly mislead and you get your money back no questions asked.

Watch it to the end, and you deserve to get laughed in the face.

When I worked at a theater in high school we'd give you your ticket money back for anything. We didn't care because all the ticket money went to the studio. We only made profits off the exorbitantly priced snacks.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[ripvlan]

This is not the first time this happened. I've seen trailers for comedies that are really funny - only to watch the final movie, missing those funny scenes, and the movie is...not funny.

I've also seen trailers that are edited in such a way to make the movie very different in appeal. Early trailers emphasize Action, later ones make it seem more "touchy feely" - and what not.

Years ago, while traveling on business in the LA area, I had the opportunity to be part of a preview audience for a movie starring Harrison Ford (about a Russian nuclear submarine that suffered a meltdown) . After watching the movie we had to fill out a questionnaire. The movie contained every single scene (pre-chopping) - however, I never saw the final movie because I thought it...wasn't his best work.

But the ads for this movie appeared on TV soon after. Build hype etc. In the meantime they processed our feedback and worked to deliver the final cut.

Would I sue for this? nah. The "kid" has a point but will probably result in small text "actual movie may not contain content." Gosh - don't games have this warning?

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[Quirkz]

If you were to believe dozens of beer commercials I've seen in the past few decades, drinking several brands of beer should cause bikini-clad women to just show up and form a party around you or something. Can beer companies be sued for false representation if that doesn't happen when I crack open a Miller Light??

I'm afraid you've got this backwards. It's not showing you what will happen to you, it's a training video instructing you how to behave around others. What they're telling you is, when you see someone else cracking open a Miller Light, you need to immediately put on a bikini and party around that person.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[Quirkz]

There's a web site called foodirl.com (food in real life) which calls out some instances of egregious differences between advertising/packaging and product. It's an entertaining read.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[david_thornley]

Man, that would drive Miller Light sales down. Have you seen me in a bikini?

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[david_thornley]

The movie Dirty Rotten Scoundrels was released in 1988, nearly thirty years ago. Its trailer was specially shot to be a trailer, and the trailer scenes were never intended to be in the movie. I heard no complaints of false advertising.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[david_thornley]

If you go to a movie when it comes out, you will be disappointed sometimes for various reasons, and the movie not being as much like the trailer as you wanted is just one possibility. If you want to make sure you get the movie you want for your money, you can wait for reviews. I'm not seeing any reason to sue here.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[bane2571]

And the guy is suing because he expected to see a film with a bunch of great joker scenes - an expectation that the trailer supported. That is where the false advertising claim stems from.

What I assumed from seeing the trailer is that the joker is the main antagonist of the film since he is the non-squad character prominently featured. Apparently this is not the case so anyone expecting to see a film about a bunch of bad guys battling the joker is going to be disappointed.

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[thegarbz]

And the guy is suing because he expected to see a film with a bunch of great joker scenes - an expectation that the trailer supported.

And yet every single scene featuring the joker in the trailer was in the movie. The actual 2 second snippet may not have been, e.g. Joker not punching the roof of his car in the movie doesn't change the fact that there's a 3 minute scene in the movie featuring the Joker and Harley Quinn driving around in the car fending off batman.

hat I assumed from seeing the trailer is that the joker is the main antagonist of the film since he is the non-squad character prominently featured.

Really? Because all the marketing leading up to movie show Joker's prominence among suicide squad members. The movie cover poster is laid out in the typical way heros a top surrounding a central villain, and joker was up among the squad. Even the movie's soundtrack feature 10 skulls on it even though there were only 9 members of taskforce X in the movie. If anything all the signs pointed to the joker being a member of the squad. Also the trailers features a big menacing scary looking thing absolutely annihilating a subway. The only exception is the comicon trailer which didn't feature any of the bad guys but then left out a lot of other trailer stuff and had precisely 1 snippet featuring the joker looking no more villainy than any other character.

Really I think it takes an ASD level of function to bring about this lawsuit or to believe that you've been mislead as to the movie's main plot.

But actually fucking kudos to the studio for not spoiling major plot twists in the trailer which seems to be all the rage at the moment (John Connor was the terminator? No way! The Trailer showing him being made of nano particles never would have given that away. The big reveal was such as surprise! NOT!)

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point

[cthulhu11]

Agreed, this is hardly new.

Plenty of Jokers

[Tablizer]

Your jokers are the lawyers.

Wait for it...

[nitzmahone]

In response to the lawsuit, studios will begin overlaying legal weasel-phrases like "scheduled to appear" and "no similarity to actual movies, created or uncreated, is implied".

Re:Wait for it...

[Anonymous Coward]

The disclaimer was actually there. It was shown in infrared, but it's clearly readable with night vision goggles.

Re:Wait for it...

[WheezyJoe]

The disclaimer was actually there. It was shown in infrared, but it's clearly readable with night vision goggles.

...but displayed so quickly, only your subconscious is aware of it: a warm fuzzy feeling of "ah well, it's just a movie, and $9 isn't that much money..."

Re:Wait for it...

[mnemotronic]

...but displayed so quickly, only your subconscious is aware of it: a warm fuzzy feeling of "ah well, it's just a movie, and $9 isn't that much money...

How are movie trailers and the current US election process alike?
1. What you see is not what you get.
2. You get a hopeful feeling during the campaigning, to be replaced by a horrible feeling a few months after the election.
3. You wonder what your friends are smoking to be so in love with the other (movie / candidate).
4. You can't wait for the next one.

This is now normal for movies

[El Cubano]

I've lost count of how many "comedy" movies I've see where the movie didn't match up to the trailer. Specifically, I'm thinking of the movies where there are about 1-2 minutes of gut-busting scenes in the trailer, then you watch the movie only to find out that those 1-2 minutes were all the worthwhile comedy content in the whole movie. I've seen much the same with other movie genres. It is very disappointing.

The way Hollywood cranks out movies now it is little better than an assembly-line. Worse, perhaps, because a decent assembly-line generally produces good quality products. It is one of the reasons there is rarely more than one movie a year that makes me want to actually go to the theater.

Re:This is now normal for movies

[Anonymous Coward]

But, in those cases, those scenes WERE in the movie right?

Re:This is now normal for movies

[x0ra]

Deadpool included such b&s tactics... I was very disappointed by the lack of back story to that movie...

Re:This is now normal for movies

[SuricouRaven]

The worst case of all might be Sucker Punch. The trailer not only bears no relation to the film, it shows the film as an entirely different genre. See the trailer for what looks like an action-packed somewhat-strange film with many fight scenes and stunts, instead end up with a drama-fantasy about a woman's internal struggle to process abuse. The trailer scenes are in there, but they are only allegorical representations that bear no relation to the actual plot.

The title is rather appropriate.

Re:This is now normal for movies

[Qzukk]

then you watch the movie only to find out that those 1-2 minutes were all the worthwhile comedy content in the whole movie

Yes. Now imagine that they cut those 2 minutes out of the movie, so you don't even get to see those.

Re:This is now normal for movies

[dargaud]

I used to never be late at movies because I loved to watch the trailers (40 years ago...). They'd give you a good idea on what the movie was about, and in most cases made you want to watch it with some hook or mystery about it.. Nowadays I hate the trailers: they contain all the best (often the only) jokes of the movies, or all the condensed action scenes, and very often reveal the entire plot and even the ending. And since the entire movie is condensed in there, it very often means you can tell the movie is complete crap and you don't want to go see it.

I don't understand why directors don't yell at the trailer makers.

Re:This is now normal for movies

[thegarbz]

Back story? A dude in love got cancer and was subject to an experiment that was supposed to make him a super weapon unbeknown to him but he managed to escape by burning the place to the ground and worked his way up to the people who did it via a killing spree.

Thank Christ they didn't try to explain that simple arse backstory any more than they already did. It's the kind of back story that puts a cinema to sleep. Oh and back story scenes contributed to a good 1/3 of that movie, you just may not realise it since it wasn't told in the traditional order.

Re:This is now normal for movies

[dywolf]

youre presuming that Hollywood as ever been little more than an assembly line.

Re:This is now normal for movies

[dywolf]

(edit)

youre presuming that Hollywood as ever not been little more than an assembly line.

Re:This is now normal for movies

[JohnFen]

True, but this is not the "new" normal. This has been normal for a very long time.

"Threatened"

[robogoofers]

How it this news? A 12 year old says something stupid on reddit and it ends up on the front page of Sladhdot?

Re:"Threatened"

[geek]

It would seem a lot of people agree to some extent which is why it's gained steam in the media in general. Not sure a 12 year old can actually file a lawsuit, parents might have to do it for him/her.

Re:"Threatened"

[mwvdlee]

In other news, a third grader threatened to commit mass homicide unless his demand for return of his backpack is met with due haste.

Re:"Threatened"

[fahrbot-bot]

How it this news? A 12 year old says something stupid on reddit and it ends up on the front page of Sladhdot?

Thank you. This entire thread should consist of only one post: Reddit (sigh) /thread

Re:"Threatened"

[thegarbz]

It would seem a lot of people agree to some extent which is why it's gained steam in the media in general.

Quite frankly "a lot" seem to describe a few delusional DC fans who are butthurt that Suicide Squad wasn't as good as the Avengers. Seriously there are far FAR worse movies out there, and the advertisements seem to have been spot on with the movie I saw, but for some reason this movie has brought sue happy ASD freaks out of the woodworks.

The only really strange thing here is how does this garbage make it to Slashdot.

I think I'll sue Slashdot because this site should be news for nerds, stuff that matters, and some whiny twat wasting money on a frivolous lawsuit is neither.

weird

[phantomfive]

What a weird bunch of fans. I don't understand them at all. Where did they come from?

Re:weird

[avandesande]

I would presume they came from parents....

WTF

[largeGrande]

Why say that there is a fan that is suing, when in all reality its some guy on the internet threatening to do so... Hard to say this is actual news.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Why say that there is a fan that is suing, when in all reality its some guy on the internet threatening to do so... Hard to say this is actual news.

Apparently it's a 12 year old kid. This is why I hate the Internet.

Refund him the ticket price

[gurps_npc]

Look, it's not their fault if some idiot drives 300 miles. It's only their fault for making a crappy movie, or rather for over-charging for it. If they gave that piece of crap away for free that would be just about right.

They owe him the ticket price. That's it.

Re:Refund him the ticket price

[CODiNE]

I saw it free. T-Mobile gave away I don't know how many free tickets to Suicide Squad. But basically every American subscriber just had to use their Tuesday benefit and there you had it. Wonder how little faith the studio had in it to give away potentially millions of free opening day tickets. Talk about shameless promotion.

Re:Refund him the ticket price

[EvilSS]

The actual mystery is why drove 300 miles not kilometres.

Because Brits aren't nearly as metric as they sometimes claim to be. For instance, they buy fuel in litres but they use MPG for fuel efficiency. And then there is that weird thing where they measure their own weight in relation to big rocks.

Re:Refund him the ticket price

[Schaffner]

They still use miles for driving distances in the UK. Odometers in cars give the distance measured in miles, not kilometers or furlongs/fortnight.

Re:Refund him the ticket price

[Anonymous Coward]

But at least they don't measure their own weight in relation to another nation's currency.

Have fun storming the castle ...

[jxander]

Do you think it'll work?

This is the most blatant case of false advertising

[Joe_Dragon]

This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story. Ask for a trail by jury

Twister 1996

[Bryan Ischo]

The first time I saw this bait-and-switch technique was with Twister in 1996. Advertising showed a scene filmed from a first person point of view across a big empty field with a tornado in the distance. Stuff was flying everywhere and far in the distance a large piece of construction equipment is pulled apart and then a huge tire comes flying at the camera. I thought that scene looked really cool, this was fairly early in the days of wow-factor CG special effects. After watching the movie in the theatre I realized that the scene was not in it.

It always irked me and I always thought it was a bit of bait-and-switch, and I'm glad that someone is trying to hold the studios accountable.

By the way I can't believe that back in 1996 my time was so invaluable to me that I would spend it going to a movie theatre to watch a movie like Twister. In the years since I've been incredibly much more selective. I never watch any of the brain dead CG fest superhero movies, or really any movie whose sole attraction is how much pointless eye candy they can put on the screen in each scene.

Re:Twister 1996

[Bryan Ischo]

"Invaluable" was the wrong word, oops. I meant, "of such low value".

Also Hey Slashdot, I've been on this site for about 18 years now, still no edit button??? WTF? You guys should just move to the Disqus comments system. It is far superior to anything you've ever done.

Re:Twister 1996

[Black Parrot]

"Invaluable" was the wrong word, oops. I meant, "of such low value".

That's "unvaluable".

Re:Twister 1996

[Calydor]

The Edit button is never coming because it would allow people to change their posts after people have replied to them. Without a means to edit you know the post looks the way it did when it was originally submitted.

This is what PREVIEW is for, check your stuff for typoes before actually submitting.

Re:Twister 1996

[Quirkz]

Twister's one of my guilty pleasures. It's cheesy, but it's not badly put together, for what it is. I came away from that movie extremely enthusiastic about the idea of being a storm chaser, until I realized I'd probably need to live in Oklahoma or Kansas to do it.

Re:Twister 1996

[Oligonicella]

Or one can just edit using the preview option combined with time.

Re:Twister 1996

[EmeraldBot]

I understand that logic.

But what's wrong with allowing edit until someone replies? Or even allow edit up until someone begins to compose a reply. And then, if the original author is editing, and the person wanting to reply clicks reply, they get a helpful message saying "author is editing, reply not allowed until editing is complete/times out". I know it's a hassle to enumerate the possible combinations, but it wouldn't be too much AJAX to make it work.

However, making it work nicely with those using static HTML (who I support 100% BTW) is much trickier. For those users it becomes a bit more tedious. Their reply goes up to the server, but if an edit occurred before their reply was received, the reply content gets bounced back to the user and they are given a chance to edit it in context with the new post content. That way they can decide if their reply is still relevant. There is one more combination that would be robust, but may piss some users off as their new post/or edit (depending on how you want to slice it) would be bounced.

Anyway, I normally get paid quite well to work this stuff out for my clients. Slashdot certainly isn't paying me enough to write any more than this...

This system also adds a bunch of complexity, runs a lot of scripts that need to be maintained, potentially introduces a vector for security bugs, slows down comment writing by potentially a significant amount, and breaks the page for people who disable advanced JavaScript. Furthermore, if your comment is valuable, it will usually get a reply pretty quickly, rendering the whole system mute. It sounds weird, but there's a reason why there isn't one after all these years, and it's not because the idea wasn't considered.

Re:Twister 1996

[Chrondeath]

The one that irked me (to the point that I remember it, anyway) was...that one Highlander movie with Adrian Paul that made it into theaters. I was a big fan of the TV series already; trailers had the villain doing a bunch of magic that adolescent-me thought would make him a unique threat to be faced. Movie comes out, nothing like that to be seen. The villain's most threatening move is hiding a dagger up his sleeve. Half the TV episodes had more impressive opponents.

Re:Twister 1996

[NotAPK]

I agree with everything you wrote, except for this "breaks the page for people who disable advanced JavaScript".

When I wrote "static HTML" this means no JavaScript at all. In my humble opinion all websites should work with JavaScript disabled entirely.

Psychologically there is something about editing that you must consider. Not everyone can do it. Do you know anyone who claims they can't edit text on the computer? They have to print it out and edit in hard copy? There is no doubt there are some real complicating factors that means some people can't edit their response in advance, while to others it seems obvious and easy.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I was trying to point out that technically an editing system could be implemented that did not break the premise of "posts can't be edited once replied to". There is no technical reason why it can't be done. But of course it's just simpler to not allow editing at all.

Re:Twister 1996

[dargaud]

In the years since I've been incredibly much more selective. I never watch any of the brain dead CG fest superhero movies, or really any movie whose sole attraction is how much pointless eye candy they can put on the screen in each scene.

I agree with your first sentence, but not the second. The whole point of having a big and high quality screen like the movie theatre is to enjoy the eye candy. A good drama with little visuals is just as enjoyable on a small screen at home. As for comedies, the jury is out: it's nice to laugh together with other people, but I tend to laugh at completely different scenes than most people.

Re:Twister 1996

[thegarbz]

It always irked me and I always thought it was a bit of bait-and-switch, and I'm glad that someone is trying to hold the studios accountable.

This would worry me too if I were paying for a movie by the scene. But this is not a restaurant. They aren't advertising a beef goulash and then not offering it to you on the menu as a choice.

The problem with Twister is not that a single scene was not included in the cut. That isn't an issue since they are advertising a story. The problem is the story doesn't match up. The Twister trailer was a story about a natural disaster. The Twister movie was a story about storm chasers. To me this is the far worse offender than a scene not being present in the movie.

Conversely the Suicide Squad trailer described a story identical to the one we got in the movie. I think this lawsuit is frivolous.

Re:Twister 1996

[dywolf]

you shutup.

Twister is a fantastic movie.

Re:Twister 1996

[goose-incarnated]

I've pointed this out before and will probably have to point it out again in the future

And then, if the original author is editing, and the person wanting to reply clicks reply, they get a helpful message saying "author is editing, reply not allowed until editing is complete/times out".

Because that allows the poster to effectively prevent replies to the post in question. All they have to do is a while loop using wget to hit the "reply" link. Allowing editing while preventing revisionism introduces complex and subtle bugs, like your proposal above.

For every single method you can think of that allows non-revisionist editing, I'll give you a valid way to break it.

The current KISS method works the best, with orders of magnitude fewer complexities.

Re:Twister 1996

[werepants]

That might be something different entirely... one early trailer for The Incredibles was almost a short film. It showed Mr. Incredible getting a call on his emergency superhero phone and then struggling to fit his out-of-shape self into his old costume. The scene wasn't in the movie, and it wouldn't have really fit into the plot at all - it just demonstrated the overall theme of the film, and one of the characters.

Or, consider: there was a Deadpool poster that satirically represented the movie as a romantic comedy when in actuality it was a dark comedy/action-adventure, but it was fitting with the character's snarky and prank-oriented disposition.

I'm not sure where you draw the line on presenting films truthfully without significantly constraining the creative freedom allowed in movie advertisements. Trailers are themselves an art form, and sometimes a trailer that doesn't contain a single actual scene from the movie can be extremely effective. Consider also the Deadpool promotional video where he was just laying in front of a fireplace, talking about the movie. Nobody would reasonably expect that such a scene would actually be in the movie.

Re:Twister 1996

[geoscodin]

To add some potential context -- I am involved in an Indie film now where the trailer has been out for weeks, but the editing still isn't complete, which is not uncommon for Hollywood blockbusters, too. To get into theaters, those theaters want (without ever seeing it) the run time to be about 90 minutes to keep their scheduling simple. As the editing was being done, it became clear the movie would be closer to 2 hours, so we had to start cutting scenes. When you cut 20 minutes, you not only lose some footage from the trailer, but you wind up having to do a few reshoots so transitions make sense again. It's a fluid process. In order to get the movie into theatres as quickly as possible and recoup the investment, the trailer is put together early to create buzz for the actual movie, so changes sometimes cannot be avoided.

Re:Twister 1996

[Bryan Ischo]

Stick to your guns man. I don't agree with anything he wrote, all of which basically can be reduced to the argument: "no new features should ever be added to any product because they might introduce bugs." Which is ridiculous.

The other category of trailer lies

[DrYak]

The current "suit" is for the other kind of trailer lies.

I'm thinking of the movies where there are about 1-2 minutes of gut-busting scenes in the trailer, then you watch the movie only to find out that those 1-2 minutes were all the worthwhile comedy content in the whole movie.

In this case, you whatch the movie and don't even see those 1-2 minutes from the trailer that were worthwhile.
Because, by the time the executives are done meddling with the movie, those scenes didn't even make it to the final cut that was released in theater.

Re:The other category of trailer lies

[El Cubano]

In this case, you whatch the movie and don't even see those 1-2 minutes from the trailer that were worthwhile. Because, by the time the executives are done meddling with the movie, those scenes didn't even make it to the final cut that was released in theater.

Good point. I guess that in either case the trailer gives a deceptive view what the movie will contain. Most movies nowadays are rubbish, so I tend to be picky about what movies I watch. In 99% of the cases I wait for the movie to come out on DVD, and check out the reputable reviews (not necessarily just the IMDB star rating) so I don't waste my time/money.

Boy will he be surprised by his Russian bride

[WillAffleckUW]

Seriously, though. It's not like the movie was called Joker and Friends.

You can see those cuts in the Director's Gold Cut edition of Suicide Squad when it's released, only $250.

Re:Boy will he be surprised by his Russian bride

[Locke2005]

The extended cut now pretty much gets released with every DVD/BluRay edition, doesn't it? So yeah, pay another $20 to see the deleted scenes.

Re:What's with all these comic book movies?

[rubycodez]

right on, they should be watching action and romance anime, and reading manga/LN, the immature little boys!

for real ?

[Tom]

This and the rotten tomatoes thing makes me wonder if people really get so emotional about a friggin' movie or if that's all an ad campaign to keep it in the headlines.

Re:for real ?

[Locke2005]

I think the Rotten Tomatoes petition was meant as satire/sarcasm... but I'm not absolutely sure.

He did see the scenes

[Anonymous Coward]

He saw the scenes in the trailer for free. Case closed.

Re:He did see the scenes

[Anonymous Coward]

If a pack of cookies have a clear window showing part of the content then you would expect that the rest of the package contains more of the same.

Much like you would expect the content of the movie to be "more of the same" - and that's what you received: you did see scenes including the Joker, and you did see other scenes similar to the trailer. Did you get THAT SPECIFIC SCENE? No. But you got more of the same.

Re: He did see the scenes

[hackwrench]

The question everybody here seems to be assuming the answer to is "yes", is "Were the scenes in the movie similar enough to the scenes in the trailer for the trailer to not be false advertising?" This is one of my grudges with copyright: It encourages people not familliar with the source material to get involved thus resulting in a less satisfactory product for the actual fanbase.

He HAD to drive 300 miles to London?

[DrXym]

He wasted an entire day and £160 to drive all the way from Scotland to London to watch a movie...

Sane people would simply visit their local cinema where the exact same movie got released on the exact same day as everywhere else in the UK. Rational people would wait for some critical consensus to form to justify their decision to visit rather than basing their expectations on studio hype and bullshit.

So I must surmise he is completely fucking stupid or a troll.

Re:He HAD to drive 300 miles to London?

[IMightB]

or an iPhone/iWatch, iApple product

Re:He HAD to drive 300 miles to London?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Now, I'm not saying your reasoning is wrong, but isn't this textbook victim blaming?

This guy bought into allegedly fraudulent advertising claims and lost some money. How is that any different from someone getting conned by someone in the street? I mean, yes, everyone ought to be smarter than that, but isn't that the whole point of laws prohibiting fraud? To protect those among us that are gullible enough to fall for it?

Re:He HAD to drive 300 miles to London?

[DrXym]

I don't see how its victim blaming because it's hard to see this person as a victim. He was "cheated" out of a few seconds of movie scenes. All the rest, the day driving to London, the fuel, his ridiculously high expectations etc. are completely his own fault.

Re:He HAD to drive 300 miles to London?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

I don't see how its victim blaming because it's hard to see this person as a victim. He was "cheated" out of a few seconds of movie scenes.

If one purchases a particular multi-featured product or service for one specific feature, and then it turns out that feature doesn't actually exist, is one cheated out of only this specific feature or is one cheated out of the full purchase price of the entire product or service?

I'm inclined to say the latter, which is why I believe he was cheated out of the full price of admission. Regardless of any incidental expenses incurred, you yourself admit that he was cheated. Why do you find it hard to see someone who was cheated as a victim? In your mind, is fraud a victimless crime?

Re:He HAD to drive 300 miles to London?

[DrXym]

This isn't a feature, it's a few seconds of footage. And it's not uncommon for a movie to differ from the trailer in a myriad of ways because the trailer is made first, often not by the director, before all the effects or score are made and before the director has finished editing.

I don't go complaining that the trailer for Romancing the Stone has an entire phone conversation not in the movie, or that Liam Neeson attacks wolves with glass taped to his hands in the Grey in the trailer but not the movie. I don't complain that sometimes an author like GRR Martin release text from a forthcoming novel that differs from the final copy.

Anyone so upset by a few seconds change is an idiot, not a victim.

Foul play

[GeekWithAKnife]

They called the movie Suicide squad but none are committed to the act and no one actually committed suicide.

12 million your honour, I was distraught!

Re:Foul play

[Locke2005]

Spoiler Alert: Technically SlipKnot did actually commit suicide!

Bender's got it

[Jfetjunky]

http://i.imgur.com/mXyupD1.gif

Kid, you're 12.. Tough Shit

[Virtucon]

Welcome to the real world.

Re:This is the most blatant case of false advertis

[fahrbot-bot]

This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story. Ask for a trail by jury

A jury - of his peers? ... from Reddit ... dear God.

Re:What's with all these comic book movies?

[rubycodez]

Sports? Social drinking? Sounds like things riajuus do to waste their lives. Riajuus should just go explode.

Duh

[Locke2005]

Like most movies, the ads are advertising the DVD/BluRay release, which will contain all the scenes that were cut from the movie to make it fit the theater timeslot. Just like Batman vs. Superman, shit was cut from the movie. Get over it!

It bothers me

[mhkohne]

It bothers me that this is actually LESS idiotic than the petition against Rotten Tomatoes. This (while stupid) at least bumps up against reality somewhere.

Mind you, it'd be nice if the trailers kind of reflected the movie to some degree, but I suspect that's more than Hollywood can handle.

Re:Films today

[Locke2005]

My friend's mother-in-law used to watch only action flicks, because she spoke only Korean and you don't need to understand English to follow the plot of an action flick!

had this been about a piece of software...

[Lead Butthead]

no one would've made a fuss over it; since everyone knew the actual product will always have deferred features.

Re:This is the most blatant case of false advertis

[Joe_Dragon]

a jury of pissed off movie goes who have issues with the high cost of food their.

He's an idiot

[brando56894]

While I'll agree that the movie was lackluster (saw it on opening day in NYC, luckily only had to pay $3 thanks to T-Mobile!), this guy is an idiot for wanting to sue over wasted time, he's what's wrong with the judicial system (I can't say the US system because this happened in the UK). First off, driving 300 miles one way to see a freaking movie that is going to be everywhere?? I'll never understand why people wait hours and hours or drive hundreds of miles to be the first to see a movie that is going to be out for weeks, I can understand if it's a one time event like a concert, but a movie? Secondly, yea I was disappointed that The Joker only had about 20 minutes screen time in the whole movie, but does it want to make me go through the trouble of suing a mega corporation because I'm butt hurt over my favorite character not being in the movie long enough? Absolutely not. Thirdly, he's a whiny little bitch who has nothing better to do with his life than complain about a movie and make himself look like an ass. Game studios do this stuff all the time, and as someone else said this happens all the time with movie trailers. I just thought the movie was lame since Jared Leto wasn't a good Joker IMO, he lacked screen time; I had no idea who the other characters were outside of Harley Quinn; Batman was randomly in it for about 4 minutes; and finally even though some of these characters are Batman (super) villains, the whole story takes place in Midway City (which 90% of people have never heard of, including myself and it has nothing to do with the origins of any character in the Suicide Squad) instead of Gotham City! You would think they would have all of the Suicide Squad locked up at Arkham Asylum, yet there was no mention of that and instead they were at a 'Black Site' in Louisiana for some reason! It's almost like they put a lot of things into a hat and just blindly picked things out and stuck them together for no reason.

Re:Hollywood accounting

[tepples]

Is the ad agency that produced the trailer also dissolved, as well as the television channels and theatres that carried the trailer?

Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a pointed head

[mnemotronic]

... directors cut ...

Bingo! That, "Part II" and the "remake" comprise the essence of the motion picture industry. Personally I'm waiting for the doobie-intensive new "Star Wars" movie, "Roll One". I'm sure it's totally far out.

Re:Hollywood accounting

[AK Marc]

The ad agency will have a contract that transfers all legal liability to the defunct production company. And I can't think of when a TV channel that showed a commercial was sued for false advertising when the first complaint was received after the advertising campaign ended. They couldn't have known, so they should be blameless (both morally and legally).

"Is it 'The Joker' or just 'Joker'?" Kim asked.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

For that matter, I feel like suing because the Joker was in the movie.

Re:"Is it 'The Joker' or just 'Joker'?" Kim asked.

[parkinglot777]

For that matter, I feel like suing because the Joker was in the movie.

GP said "This wasn't a movie about the Joker." Also, if the trailer shows Joker but there is no Joker in the real show, then the claim could be valid because that is a real bait-and-switch.

Re:Not a fan

[tnk1]

I actually thought that Deadshot was the character they fleshed out most, although they certainly did feature Harley Quinn quite a bit more than the others, for plainly obvious reasons.

File briefs at getalife.org

[JThaddeus]

Seriously.

The Joker

[Orion Blastar]

they filmed over 2 hours worth of Joker footage and didn't use but so many minutes of them.

They got enough to make a movie about The Joker with the Joker scenes they didn't even use. I'm sure it could have taken on an R rating and gone against Deadpool's movie.

Pot calling kettle. Come in kettle!

[hackwrench]

To what shall I liken this generation? They are like children calling to each other in the streets: "I played a waltz for you and you did not dance. I played a dirge, and you did not mourn."

Re:Pot calling kettle. Come in kettle!

[hairyfeet]

Frankly the studios SHOULD be sued for false advertising because increasingly what you see in the trailer isn't even in the film, so how can you say its anything but false advertising when you sell a product based on content it doesn't actually have?

Remember Fan4stic with those cool scenes of The Thing jumping out a plane and kicking ass? Not in the movie. Jonah Hex, Green Lantern, they tried to sell the movies with action scenes that simply did not exist in the final cut.

To use a /. car analogy if I sold you on this new car by showing you pics of this tricked out chromed up engine, only for you to get it home and find I swapped it out with a used nasty looking 4 banger you'd be pissed, wouldn't you? Well I don't see how this is any different, as for nearly a century a trailer is the "best of" reel to get people excited for a film but now increasingly its nothing but bullshit that doesn't even exist in the movie.

Re:Pot calling kettle. Come in kettle!

[Maritz]

Article doesn't seem to mention age, so what generation are we talking about?

Re:Pot calling kettle. Come in kettle!

[Frigga's Ring]

Sounds like a good idea, but it will not net you the change you want. All this would result in is a disclaimer at the bottom of the trailer informing viewers that the trailer is not based on the final product. That disclaimer would just as easily make things worse because it would give advertisers more leeway to put things in their trailer that aren't in the movie.

To use the same car analogy, in most car commercials, there is a disclaimer at the bottom explaining that the features they're talking about are only available in the super special addition which costs significantly more and not in the car available for the "starting price" on the screen.

Comic fans are the worst fans

[Anonymous Coward]

esp when they are 12.

Alfred Hitchcock

[gringer]

Better not show this fan any Alfred Hitchcock trailers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:But he saw those scenes

[ledow]

Roll up, ladies and gentleman, and look at my product. Here, see what we will do for you, we'll do this. Brilliant isn't it? So cool, I hear you say. Just 9.99 and you can see this.

Oh. You bought it. Yeah, that's you're lot.

You need a better lawyer hat - false advertising is basically fraud. You can't claim that the trailer is just there for people to watch the trailer. It's there as a preview of the movie (they even CALL them previews INSIDE the trailer). So, yeah, minor detail changes, a couple of extra sparks in the CGI, that kind of thing changes.

Entire scenes that were used to entice you to buy the movie, never then appearing? Multiple of them? That's a bit different. It's like watching a trailer for an Angelina Jolie movie and then she's not in it. But you got your trailer, right?

I have to agree with the guy. I'm sure the lawyers in court will throw a ton of legal obstacles at his argument and make him fight but he's got a good point.

From my perspective, though: The scene was that good that you used it to show off the movie right through to acting it, filming it, editing it, choosing it for the trailer, making millions of copies of said trailer and pushing them into cinema and TV. And then you remove it? How shit was the rest of that characters involvement with the movie? And then you did it MULTIPLE times? Just how shit was everything else about that character or was he just that for a couple of faked action scenes that never made it into the full movie at all?

Edits, sure. Total removal of key scenes you've been using to advertise your product? That's just cheating. And seems really stupid.

You might as well show a trailer that's just 10 minutes of explosions and comedian-written jokes, and then put a drama on with completely different actors when people actually buy the movie. Otherwise, where's the line?

BlackPanther2016

[cstacy]

Jared, is that you?

Somebody WANTED to see the Joker scenes?

[advocate_one]

My daughter says they were the worst part of the whole movie...

Re:Hollywood accounting

[Maritz]

You seem to think that TV channels have some sort of duty of care that their advertisements are legit. That isn't how it works.

90% lunacy, 10% point

[Ogive17]

Disclaimer - I have not seen the movie.

The chance that this guy drove 300 miles SPECIFICALLY to watch a couple scenes with the Joker involved is ridiculous. That's his own damn fault he traveled such a distance. I have only been to London but I'm willing to place a wager he passed a few theatres closer to his residence while making this trek. Sounds to me that he didn't like the movie, regrets being dumb enough to travel so far to see it, and wants to use this law to make things financially right for him.

But, he does have a bit of a point. The production company can say that those scenes were cut at the last minute, after the trailers had been created. In the US, the few trailers I saw did not include the scenes he described.

Law suit?!?! I'd like to thank them!

[dfenstrate]

The 'Joker' character in Suicide Squad was badly written and over-acted. I enjoyed the movie overall, but Leto's character didn't even have the depth of your average comic book villian. He's just a nut ball.
The movie is already loaded with backstory, so without sacrificing protagonist screen time, this Joker never had a chance to get his own identity. He's a supporting character for Harley. Given that, I think they probably should have stayed a bit more 'sane' and traditional with him.

Publishers' duty of care

[tepples]

You seem to think that TV channels have some sort of duty of care that their advertisements are legit.

I know next to nothing about UK law other than that European law tends to be somewhat more protective of consumers than U.S. law. And even in the U.S., there is evidence of such a "duty of care that their advertisements are legit": the FCC has fined US cable TV networks millions of dollars for showing trailers for the film Olympus Has Fallen that included Emergency Alert System signals.

really

[SuperDre]

It would have been news if the person actually started the lawsuit, but now, it's just somebody yelling and not actually having suid the studio..
And I think any decent lawyer would have advised against it, as the chance of winning is zero.. Trailers are know to have scenes which do not make it into the movie, mostly due to the trailers being cut before the actual movie is finished..

I learned something

[JohnFen]

I didn't know that so many people actually believe that trailers are a fair representation of the movie they're associated with. Huh, you learn something new every day.

There are exceptions, but generally speaking trailers have only had a very loose connection with the movie they purport to represent for decades, at least. I never assume that they give a real indication of what the movie is like, what the movie is about, or often even what genre a movie is in.

Re:Films today

[Bob the Super Hamste]

So like the westerns of old.

Antitrust too

[scorp1us]

There was a scene in the trailer for Antitrust (2001) where Rachel Leigh Cook is in a bedroom scene with Ryan Phillipe. It never occurs in the movie.

Opposite problem

[chris234]

I would have liked a lot less Joker in the movie myself, aside from the Harley intro his character was pretty irrelevant to the story, and not a particularly good Joker.

Re:What's with all these comic book movies?

[rubycodez]

There are some differences between riajuus and normies, riajuus have the stereotypical "good life". However normies are just as useless and should explode too

Re:This is the most blatant case of false advertis

[david_thornley]

What happens when a urologist has to be tried by a jury of his or her peers?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I honestly know how he feels

[backwardsposter]

Although I would never bother to sue over it, I assume this is the new normal. Does anyone remember the movie "9"? The trailer had puppets fighting robots to the tune of "Welcome Home" by Coheed and Cambria. It looked awesome.

That was perhaps the most disappointed in a movie I ever was. Not only were there very few of the fight scenes that weren't in the trailer, but the song never played during the movie. Just the credits. What's the point?

suggestion

[Movies97]

please join http://movies97.com/ for all types of new to old hollywood movies