Trailers that mislead are now a sensitive issue in Hollywood. A judge in the US has ruled that in certain cases, a movie preview can violate the law.
Did you see the trailer for the romcom Yesterday three years ago and only buy a ticket because of Ana de Armas’ brief appearance? If so, you might have been caught freezing in the cinema. Because the actress known from Blade Runner 2049 and Knives Out doesn’t appear for a second in the finished film.
Such was the fate of two fans who rented the film on Amazon Prime for $3.99 only because of de Armas’ supposed involvement. After the disappointing film, they went to court and sued the studio responsible, Universal, for damages of at least five million US dollars.
The big trailer question: art or (misleading) advertising?
As Variety reports, the case, which remains in court, has now made decisive progress. The judge in charge of the case, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson, has ruled that a trailer may well violate the law on misleading advertising and that the lawsuit is accordingly admissible.
Universal has argued in recent months that trailers are an art in themselves. In a few minutes, a story is told that deliberately makes use of stylistic devices etc. One of the examples given: The powerful teaser trailer for Jurassic Park, which consists entirely of footage that does not appear in the film.
You can watch the teaser trailer for Jurassic Park here:
Are trailers art or advertising? That’s been the big debate in the case for the past few months. Now Judge Wilson has settled:
“Universal is correct that trailers require a certain amount of creativity and editorial discretion, but that creativity does not outweigh the commercial nature of a trailer. At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a film by providing consumers with a preview of the film. “
This does not mean, however, that you can now sue any studio once a trailer has minimally misled you. The court emphasises that a significant number of people must be deceived and that it is not just about the personal feelings of a single person. In addition, Judge Wilson qualifies:
“The court’s decision is limited to representations as to whether an actress or scene appears in the film, and nothing else. “
Now we can be curious how the case will develop from now on. A final verdict has not yet been reached. It is also unclear how much compensation the plaintiffs will receive in the end. Nevertheless, the latest developments are causing a stir in Hollywood. Not least, many trailers are deliberately playing with the audience’s expectations.
