>

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.
"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.