Woman sues over 'misleading' movie trailer

Good for her. I hope more people do this and I hope she wins. I would love to see companies hesitate before royally f---ing the marketing of a film just to make a dollar.
 
I mean, really? You want to launch a class action lawsuit because a trailer was misleading? The theater offered to refund her the price of the ticket before she ever sued. So do I get to sue for every movie I saw where the trailer made the movie out to be funny, and it wasn't?

I mean, it's only a movie. Doesn't she have something better to do than get wound up over a movie trailer?
 
I hope she loses and I hope she wastes a lot of money in the process. I cant stand the part of society that always wants to take people to court. Low life scum is all she is and all she ever will be.
 
David W. Richardson said:
I don't think she should be suing. I feel like it's trivial and opportunistic. But where does the idea of truth in advertising come into play?
Click to expand...

If the majority of the trailer involved shots and scenes taken from a different movie, she might have a very thin case. As it stands, her complaint is pretty ridiculous. I went to see Reservoir Dogs and got neither a reservoir or dogs. Should I sue?
 
J Davis said:
Good for her. I hope more people do this and I hope she wins. I would love to see companies hesitate before royally f---ing the marketing of a film just to make a dollar.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me?

So you want more stupid people abusing the broken american justice system?

I could maybe understand if the trailer explicitly stated "You will NOT be hit in the face with a baseball bat upon entering the theatre" and then.. as she entered wham... hit in the face with a baseball bat... that'd be false advertising..

This is more a case of her not liking a movie and wanting a quick buck... she isn't doing this for the greater social good.. she's an idiot regardless of her her religious background.
 
If she wins, then somebody ought to sue the makers of Paranormal Activity and Blair Witch for saying their films were real. Really it's the same kind of crap. God, I hate this country more and more every day.
 
Let's not get political here.

To me, it's like a cereal being advertised as strawberry flavored, when it doesn't taste anything like strawberry. It's deceptive, to say the least.
 
J Davis said:
Good for her. I hope more people do this and I hope she wins. I would love to see companies hesitate before royally f---ing the marketing of a film just to make a dollar.
Click to expand...

Hmmm no.

David W. Richardson said:
To me, it's like a cereal being advertised as strawberry flavored, when it doesn't taste anything like strawberry. It's deceptive, to say the least.
Click to expand...

The title is "Drive". The main character is a driver. The opening deals with the main character on a driving assignment. The main plot stems from another driving assignment that "hits the fan". I fail to see where deception comes into play.

There is (obviously) a huge audience for fast driving action flicks. Along comes a movie that is more (way more) than that, and some feel cheated. The "drive" part is nothing more than an elaborate MacGuffin.

"Drive" is a very good film about a guy who happens to be a skilled driver, but it's not a car chase movie. "Boogie Nights" is a very good film about the porn industry, but it's not a porn movie.

If anyone wants me to explain "Driving Miss Daisy", I'll oblige.
 
David W. Richardson said:
Let's not get political here.

To me, it's like a cereal being advertised as strawberry flavored, when it doesn't taste anything like strawberry. It's deceptive, to say the least.
Click to expand...

No but filmmaking is an ART. And art is inherently subjective. The trailer for drive is only "deceptive" in the subjective perception of a particular viewer. To someone else it might be spot on. Sure if the film was marketed as a children's film with a quote like "The best family fun since The Lion King" then that is clearly misleading.
 
Searcher said:
No but filmmaking is an ART. And art is inherently subjective. The trailer for drive is only "deceptive" in the subjective perception of a particular viewer. To someone else it might be spot on. Sure if the film was marketed as a children's film with a quote like "The best family fun since The Lion King" then that is clearly misleading.
Click to expand...

Hollywood is not about creating 'art' -- it's about making money. And that is especially true for trailers, which are nothing more than advertisements to sell a product.

True that there is a certain amount of subjectivity involved, and there's a huge grey area here. But at the same time, misleading and (to my mind) deceptive Hollywood movie trailers and ad campaigns are not by any means rare.
 
Denis Haineault said:
The title is "Drive". The main character is a driver. The opening deals with the main character on a driving assignment. The main plot stems from another driving assignment that "hits the fan". I fail to see where deception comes into play.
Click to expand...

Imagine if 'Titanic' had a trailer promoting it as a movie about ships and sailing the seas. You see, it's not that the TITLE is considered by this woman to be deceptive -- it's about the TRAILER being deceptive. 'Titanic' isn't a movie about the ship -- it's a movie about the people who fall in love while onboard the ship.

"Drive" is a very good film about a guy who happens to be a skilled driver, but it's not a car chase movie.
Click to expand...

And that's exactly the point! According to her, the trailer gives the impression that the movie is essentially a car chase movie, when in fact it's not.
 
I do have to agree with her that the trailers for "Drive" were misleading, especially many of the TV spots. The film was a lot more violent than many of the ads suggested, and I can understand how some people would be bothered by that.
 
some people in this thread get it.

to the others: I think you missed my point. Its about corporations making trailers that totally misrepresent your product ... just to make a dollar ... I mean aren't you a filmmaker? Don't you care about this?

here's another one
http://screenrant.com/weinsteins-altered-the-road-trailer-kofi-10604/

it happens all the time and as a filmmaker I think it stinks

BTW- Drive looks like and awesome film and I'm looking forward to seeing it. Its not Fast and Furious, it looks more like noir and a character study.

Roger Ebert writes

"Drive" is more of an elegant exercise in style, and its emotions may be hidden but they run deep. Sometimes a movie will make a greater impact by not trying too hard. The enigma of the driver is surrounded by a rich gallery of supporting actors who are clear about their hopes and fears, and who have either reached an accommodation with the Driver, or not.
Click to expand...

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110914/REVIEWS/110919988
 
Last edited:
Quite a few of the reviews for 'Drive' on IMDB warn folks not to be 'misled' by the trailer.

While a certain amount of artistic license is due, I do believe, as J.Davis says, that Hollywood quite frequently crosses the line into outright deception in order to make a few more dollars. Considering how much money they hemorrage making their movies, I can understand the need to maximize profits. But still, at the very least it's unethical, IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top