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

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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

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

[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.

"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?

weird

[phantomfive]

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

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.

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: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:Oh get over yourself you absurd man-child

[whargoul]

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

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.