This Just In: Trailers Suck
This cannot go without comment.
If you spent any time on the Internet today, you may have noticed that a woman from Novi, MI is suing FilmDistrict, the distributors of the fantastic movie “Drive“, for falsely portraying the movie as a “chase, or race action, film”, or more specifically like a “The Fast and the Furious” knock-off.
Jump to The Hollywood Reporter article on the matter, or directly to the local news clip if you want the deets. From here on out, though, this post is going to be me ranting.
Ok, first off: Lady?!? Let me get this straight…You are suing because it wasn’t like “Fast Five”?
Also, is this, like, the first trailer you’ve ever seen? Welcome to the American Big-Budget Moviegoing Experience, for chrissake.
Forgive my temper, but I am truly baffled. I myself took the same impression away from the “Drive” trailer. I almost didn’t go see the film at all when opening weekend rolled around for that very reason. And, at about minute five, I was incredibly happy that I had given it a chance. I didn’t walk out, like the fifteen others in the theater that did when they realized that it wasn’t a generic adrenaline-fueled muscle car movie.
My opinion is that “Drive” is a fantastic movie, and that it is the focal point of a “Bad Movie Lawsuit” makes me question whether or not I am in an opposite universe. But that in itself is a common occurrence, I suppose. Furthermore, I would never wish this woman’s right to hate the movie withheld, nor did I hold anything against those who walked out of “Drive”. That’s the great thing about movies!
But to sue over a misleading trailer? That’s like suing the concept of marketing! Can you sue a toy company for making you think that your kid is going to love the mass-produced-turd just because the kids on TV are shitting bricks? I cannot even return a goddam video game to the store for sucking, despite its brilliant hype-machine marketing, let alone sue the makers of the game for selling it.
Here’s a thought… is this the most brilliant marketing ploy of all time: using the concept of ethics in marketing to market the film after a blatant move to mismarket?
Ok, I am getting heart palpitations, I need to sit down.
One last thing: If this lawsuit goes anywhere, I am following up with a suit against “Predators“. There were, like, fifteen laser scopes trained on Adrien Brody’s head in that trailer (at 1:22 on IMDB trailer, bitches). In the movie, there were two Predators at the max. WTF, guys? You’re next!
Tiffany says:
Definitely agree that it’s a dumb-ass thing to sue over, and although I haven’t seen any of the coverage yet I will be VERY surprised if this lawsuit turns out to have originated with an individual in Michigan rather than some sort of “watchdog” organization. But from a legal perspective, movie trailers are in fact in clear violation of the law, and one of the few areas where that’s gone unchallenged. Suggesting that your kid will dissolve in paroxysms of joy on spotting this particular toy is, legally, considered “puffery”, and an acceptable marketing technique. Suggesting that the toy comes with 12 accessories when in fact it only comes with 4 or that it’s a racing game when in fact it’s a princess playset is considered “misleading” and “fraudulent” and carries some hefty penalties. I’d like to see the people out there trying to clean up the world focus on something a lot more substantive, but there’s no question that many recent/current movie trailers violate the law as it’s currently written.
Don says:
I’m with you on the legal implications, but I’m not sure how far leveraging preconceptions can be taken as an act of criminal misrepresentation.
Upon watching the trailer again today, I realize that it contains only footage from the film, and implies very little beyond that there is action and driving.
There is action and driving in the film. A tiny bit of both – but they are there, and featured.
90% of my misinterpretation of this was due to having seen, and been disgusted by, the F&F films.
Don’t think that I don’t think advertisers don’t know this – but taken as it’s own piece, the trailer seems to accurately portray things that happen in the film while leveraging our preconceptions, UNLIKE the Predators trailer that just plain told us a ton of predators were going to be in it and at one point they would all aim at Adrian Brody.
Tiffany says:
Yeah, I haven’t seen either the trailer or the movie, so I’m not sure about this one in particular. What you say is odd; I was so sure this was going to turn out to be a test case, and it would apparently make a very crappy one that could lead to bad law. I do hate, though, when a trailer includes things that actually don’t happen in the movie. I consider it fair to splice in misleading ways, but inserting footage that just plain didn’t happen is wrong–not worth suing over, but sucky.
Don says:
Honestly, though I don’t think it should be lawsuit worthy, I almost skipped this one due to the “it’s gonna be blowshitupcrazy Fast and the Furious OMG OMG OMG” teailer as well.
I’d have hatred that, as this is now one of my favorite films.
Don says:
*trailer – I think “tealer” mas my mental approach to calling it at once a teaser and a trailer.