>

Dude, I don’t give a shit about Ana De Armas, but if my favorite actor/actress was shown to be in a movie and that’s why I went to see it, I’d be pissed if they then weren’t.
"Universal also argued that classifying trailers as "commercial speech" could open the door to many more lawsuits from dissatisfied filmgoers, who could make a subjective claim that a film did not live up to the expectations created by the trailer."
I'm fine with this. >


They referred to Jurassic Park, another Universal film, one trailer for which they said was comprised entirely of footage that is not in the movie.

Sounds like a second class action lawsuit is in order.
You can't claim "we didn't it before without penalties" doesn't mean you can do it all you want. >

I just watched Violent Night based on one line in the trailer, "Time for some seasons beatings." 
It wasn't in the movie at all. Still a good movie, but I was a little disappointed.
But David Harbour as an out of shape former-Viking-warrior-turned-Santa swinging a bloody hammer is my new kink, so I got that going for me. >

It looks pretty bad to me based on the trailers, but I’m interested in a new kink like that so maybe I’ll check it out. >

Wish I could sue for the Kangaroo Jack trailer >

Yeah for real. That was straight up false advertising. >

I straight up thought it was a kids movie about a talking kangaroos crazy adventures. >

Well you would. That's how it was marketed. >

Unpopular option: I hate movie trailers. They give up plot lines that ruin the experience for me.  If more trailers had footage cut from the release, I would be so happy. >

Most trailers are just too long. 30 second teasers are fine, but 2 minutes makes it almost impossible to not give it all away unless it's a 4 hour film. >

Especially since most movies today are trashy, unoriginal remakes. I actively avoid trailers at only a slightly higher rate than I avoid the movies themselves. >

I mean, many people choose movies solely based on the actors. Hollywood knows that. They shouldn’t be surprised that people are mad. If someone chose that movie only because it featured AdA, and she wasn’t in the movie, they are right to be angry. It’s false advertising. >

While I understand that. I also am of the mind that many trailers for fantastic movies, or even games, deliberately show very little, or are purposefully misleading to give the viewer a better experience. 
If the whole issue is people not wanting to be mislead by trailers, isn't it a bit of a slippery slope when some of the best trailers that people still remember years after a movie has been released, were misleading on purpose, and we ate that shit up? It even made the movie better. 
Not to mention that movies are considered art and what makes good art is purely subjective. If people go into a movie and are disappointed because it doesn't have a certain actor, then it kinda seems like they weren't really interested in the film and just wanted to pay to see that actor, which is a whole different issue about the commercialism of film. >


and what makes good art is purely subjective.

No, it isn't.  
Do you think people who go to art school just show up to class and have a teacher shrug and say "Eh, fuck if I know, it's all subjective"? >

No, you're right they probably just taught everyone to paint a red square and call it a day /s
You are conflating technique and theory with beauty.
School can teach people technique, but that doesn't inherently give any of their creations value. 
In the same vein, someone who never went to art school can create beautiful works, without any formal education of technique or theory. Because beauty and education aren't the same thing. 
Beauty is subjective, and thus, so is art. What one person hates, another person loves. Just because more people like one thing doesn't make it inherently more beautiful. 
Popularity =/= Quality. >

Can I sue because it was the worst movie I've ever seen? I watched it on the plane and wish I would have watched the flight tracker instead. >

Agree, it had an interesting premise but was one of the worst movies I've seen. I didn't even pay for it and I want a refund. >

Even the premise fizzles out when you breathe on it. It's not an idea for a movie, it's a neat daydream. >

The one decision that baffled me about the movie is they literally set up the perfect use of the song "when im sixty-four" but didnt use it. 
He mentions it to his friend when he wakes up in the Hospital and she has no idea what hes talking about. Then at the end of the movie they finally get together and you have a montage of their relationship. That would have been the perfect time to use "when im sixty-four" but no after a whole movie of Beatles music they use some generic Ed Sheeran song for that montage instead. >

The thing that baffled me about the movie is that it isn't just the Beatles and the things inspired by the Beatles that cease to exist. As far as I remember, four major things are missing in the world of Yesterday:
1) the Beatles
2) the Harry Potter books
3) Coca-Cola
4) fucking cigarettes
What the fuck, I got so mad every time one of those was revealed. Jesus christ I'm mad again now. >

Yeah that confused the shit out of me. Was it supposed to be some kind of Butterfly Effect thing? Like because The Beatles dont exist then Cigarettes and Harry Potter don't exist anymore? That makes no sense. 
So that stuff doesnt exist but the modern music industry is the same as it always was? Which that doesn't make sense either since the Beatles were a direct influence to how music was made after they made it big. They were innovative in how music was made and produced. So if they dont exist anymore... you know what im not even gonna try to explain this shit. 
Oasis not existing anymore was funny though I'll give it that as Oasis is basically what I imagine the Beatles would be like if they were still making music into the 90s >

Seems like a refund would be sufficient, no?  Suing for $5M because they spent $4 on the movie is the epitome of frivolous lawsuits. >

It's a class action, the individual returns may be in the dollars but the cost to the plaintiff will be large. The whole idea is to discourage bad behavior by businesses, regardless of the individual impact. >

Yes, but let’s be real, it’s also a lawyer feeding frenzy, encouraged by said attorneys solely for the purpose of generating exorbitant income and taking a large percentage of the “winnings” for themselves, leaving the plaintiffs with little more than the original price of the ticket.  The lawyers don’t give a shit about discouraging bad corporate behavior, they bank on it. >

I’ve seen Yesterday and personally, I’d be thrilled to not be in it. >

That is the pettiest excuse for a lawsuit I have ever seen in my life. The court that allowed this should be ashamed. >

gonna be hard to prove their damages are more than $3 even if they win the case. >

That’s why it’s a class action. >

Red Bull gives you wings...
...to file such a lawsuit. >

I mean, it's pretty shitty for the studio to make a trailer with her in it, knowing she's not in the film. It's literally false advertising. >

I was told this wouldn't ever get this far. This isn't about studios altering trailers it's about two losers with way too much time on their hands and a fetish for young Hollywood starlets. >

It’s about false advertising: ana de armas was shown to be in the movie by the trailer and wasn’t. False advertisement. >

Make that three losers