Suicide Squad Fan Suing Studio For 'False Advertising' Over Lack of Joker Scenes (independent.co.uk) 260
An anonymous reader writes from a report via The Independent: Reddit user BlackPanther2016 has threatened to begin legal action against Warner Bros and DC Comics later this week, claiming that teasing Joker scenes in trailers that did not make the final film amounts to "unjust false advertising." The disgruntled superhero fan argued in a post on Movies subreddit that he should receive a refund after driving 300 miles to London to watch "specific scenes explicitly advertised in TV ads" only to leave feeling ripped off. He says he will file a lawsuit on August 11, with his "lawyer" brother leading the case. Part of his litigious post reads: "Suicide Squad trailers showcased several specific Joker scenes that I had to pay for the whole movie just so that I can go watch those specific scenes that Warner Bros/DC Comics had advertised in their trailers and TV spots. These scenes are: when Joker banged his head on his car window, when Joker says 'Let me show you my toys,' when Joker punches the roof of his car, when Joker drops a bomb with his face all messed up and says, 'Bye bye!' None of these scenes were in the movie." Last week, Suicide Squad fans petitioned to shut down rotten tomatoes over negative reviews.
Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
Half of me wants to say "grow the fuck up, you whiny little turd"... but the other half agrees that it's false advertising if those scenes were used to lure in audiences then not included in the film. If they're in the ad, then presumably they're some of the best / most enticing scenes... and to not include them seems like a bait and switch.
So, go get 'em, you whiny little turd. :)
Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know why I think there's a difference between visuals and sound track, but it just doesn't seem as "bait-and-switchy" to use different music in the promo than in the film. Maybe its because they use music with all forms of advertising, and I don't expect the music to come with the product. (When I buy a new car, I don't expect the music soundtrack from the commercial to be playing on the radio all the time, etc.). But if they show me that the car has airbags in the commercial, they'd better damn
Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point (Score:4, Funny)
Dunno; when you consider that most dating sites show nothing but fairly attractive people frequenting such sites, but reality dictates that the majority of humanity is uglier than a moldy sack of rusty hammers...
Re: (Score:3)
This wasn't a movie about the Joker, it was a movie in which there was (supposed to be) scenes including the Joker.
In the same vein, dating sites aren't exclusively filled with beautiful people, but there are beautiful people on the dating sites. Allegedly. .
"Is it 'The Joker' or just 'Joker'?" Kim asked. (Score:2)
For that matter, I feel like suing because the Joker was in the movie.
Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point (Score:5, Funny)
reality dictates that the majority of humanity is uglier than a moldy sack of rusty hammers...
Maybe you should try traveling outside UK
Re: (Score:2)
It makes sense to use different music. Many adds use a single song for the entire ad while showing clips from the entire movie. A fight scene may be edited heavily for inclusion in an add, to the point where the original soundtrack may not match up properly.
To use the most recent Star Wars as an example, they played the familiar theme song through large portions of some ads. I can reasonably expect that this song will not be playing through the entire movie. What this person alleges they did with Suicid
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of ironic, since similar things are exactly what they do. The fine print usually says "deluxe model shown" or something like that, and says that models vary.
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be an apt analogy if cinemas were also playing Suicide Squad Deluxe. I have seen no evidence that they are.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't referring to the movie trailer issue, just the car ad issue.
(Though I'm amazed people haven't known for a VERY long time that the trailer and actual movie differ.. I always like watching the trailer AFTER watching the movie, to see how different they are.)
Re: (Score:2)
I always like watching the trailer AFTER watching the movie, to see how different they are.)
You'll enjoy this (if you haven't already seen it).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
almost all trailers show footage or music that end up getting cut from the final film for various reasons.
That doesn't excuse this movie, it just means the rest of them ought to be sued, too. If you run a TV commercial for a buffet restaurant and it shows a big pile of crab legs, but your buffet doesn't actually sell crab legs, you should rightly expect some legal trouble. Why is a movie any different?
Re: (Score:2)
If you run a TV commercial for a buffet restaurant and it shows a big pile of crab legs, but your buffet doesn't actually sell crab legs, you should rightly expect some legal trouble.
Depends. I imagine most such commercials will contain a disclaimer in the "fine print" that appears at some point saying "Actual availability of food items may vary by time and location" or something like that. After all, restaurants do run out of food sometimes, particularly at all-you-can-eat buffets. So unless the commercial identified the crab legs as a specific selling point, they may be in the clear.
But yeah, your point is taken. It really depends on expectations, though. If you were to believe
Re: (Score:2)
Point of order, In Bruges is, in fact, a hilarious dark comedy.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you're not selling scenes, you're selling an entire story. Quite the opposite from a restaurant which has a menu where you can pick and choose the experience.
If a trailer shows and action film and it turns out to be a soppy love comedy then you have grounds for false advertising.
If a trailer shows a thriller shows nothing but talking and it turns out to be a musical then you have grounds for false advertising.
For everything else we got exactly what we expect from the trailer. I saw scenes in the mov
Re: (Score:2)
The trailers are shot before the film is. If the trailers don't fit the film as shot, its tough to include them.
Now, if the film companies actually waited for the film to be finished before advertising it, then they wouldn't get caught advertising something they couldn't deliver.
Re: (Score:2)
Half of me wants to say "grow the fuck up, you whiny little turd"... but the other half agrees that it's false advertising if those scenes were used to lure in audiences then not included in the film. If they're in the ad, then presumably they're some of the best / most enticing scenes... and to not include them seems like a bait and switch.
So, go get 'em, you whiny little turd. :)
They'll just add it to the directors cut and the kid will have no case.
Re: (Score:2)
It will be in the sequel.... Disguised as a news broadcast running in the background of another scene.
Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a pointed head (Score:2)
... directors cut ...
Bingo! That, "Part II" and the "remake" comprise the essence of the motion picture industry. Personally I'm waiting for the doobie-intensive new "Star Wars" movie, "Roll One". I'm sure it's totally far out.
Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
Same feeling for me.
Our laws are only enforced if people take actions. Otherwise, the slope keeps getting slipperier.
There could be legit reasons for it. Maybe those joker scenes were in the movie, but were edited out. However if the deleted scenes are a key draw, it could still be valid depending on the case.
Who knows, they might find a smoking gun email where some exec says 'Just keep the Joker scenes in even if we cut them. Those stupid nerds will pay for anything'
Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point (Score:4, Interesting)
I worry far more about the costs of an excessively litigious society than the alleged trauma of a first-world man-child over not seeing specific a few expected scenes in a movie.
Re: (Score:2)
There could be legit reasons for it. Maybe those joker scenes were in the movie, but were edited out.
It's pretty common knowledge (at least I thought it was) that trailers are often released before the final cut of a film is necessarily finished. The "rough cut" of many films is often much longer than the final cut, as the director and editor work through how to make everything work the best. Then they do test screening and maybe edit some more, etc.
Thus, I have NEVER had the expectation that every single scene in a trailer is necessarily in the final product. And over the years I've noticed a number
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. This is not the menu of a restaurant. We are not sold a series of 2 second snips of frames that we can pick and choose when we want. What we are sold is a story, and that is what the trailer is advertising. The trailer advertised a film about a bunch of criminals who joined together in a taskforce to fight some evil force, oh and they make jokes. All of that (and more) featured in the movie, and if it didn't you got all those scenes in the trailer in 1080p on youtube for free.
Re: (Score:2)
The Joker cuts may have been a result of just that.
Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point (Score:5, Informative)
This is a good thing, fake trailers that badly mis-represent the film should be strongly discouraged. The scenes were in the trailer and not even in the movie.
However, this guy is a twat. He's doing it wrong. In the UK you don't file a "lawsuit" over it. He needs to do the following:
1. Request a refund from the studio, including travel costs.
2. When they refuse, file a claim with Small Claims Court. You don't need a lawyer but it sounds like he needs one. A real one.
3. Eventually win back your £10 cinema ticket, travel costs and court fees. Total is likely to be less than £100, unless he went by train in which case maybe £200.
We don't have punitive damages and it's unlikely he would get much for "mental anguish" etc.
Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point (Score:5, Interesting)
The article implies something close to step 1 was already tried: "I told the theatre about this unjust act and said ‘I didn’t get what I came here to see, can I have my money back?’ They laughed at me and kicked me out. So I’m now taking this to court." Hence your step 2.
Re: (Score:2)
Hands up, I only skimmed TFA. The "lawsuit" crap in the summary mislead me, it's likely he did file with Small Claims Court but there doesn't seem to be any solid information.
Re: (Score:2)
Theathers typically have clear rules about this. The first 30min of a film is usually enough for someone to gauge whether it was worth the money or not. Walk out of the film in the first 1/4 because you've been grossly mislead and you get your money back no questions asked.
Watch it to the end, and you deserve to get laughed in the face.
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually win back your £10 cinema ticket, travel costs and court fees.
That's kind of great, I don't think we have court fees awards for small claims in the US.
Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point (Score:5, Informative)
"He needs to do the following:"
No, you need to read the fucking article and realize that's ALREADY what's happening.
And to boot, he's calling them into court to answer for violating These simple fucking advertising rules. [www.gov.uk]
It's really sad that I seem to know your own country, and laws, better than you do. Maybe that's because I've done actual business there.
Re: (Score:2)
These simple fucking advertising rules
The rules that say an advertisement should be representative of the final product. So an ad featuring a bunch of criminals that joined into a task force to fight some powerful evil was not representative of a movie that featuring a bunch of criminals that joined into a task force to fight some powerful evil?
Honestly this guy sounds like a mental case. The studio will make the argument I just made and it will rightfully get thrown out of court because quite frankly if this is false advertising we'd basically
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good thing, fake trailers that badly mis-represent the film should be strongly discouraged. The scenes were in the trailer and not even in the movie.
A 2 second snippet in the trailer not featuring in the movie does not mis-represent the film. In every way the film was exactly what I expected after seeing the trailer, a story about a bunch of criminals who are forced together into a team to fight some non-described evil (though likely the same evil that destroyed the subway in the trailer).
Now if I went to the movie and I got a musical, that would be a different matter.
He did see the scenes (Score:2, Funny)
He saw the scenes in the trailer for free. Case closed.
Re: He did see the scenes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Because just about every goddamn trailer since the history of trailers has come out using scenes that may or may not have been cut, or even scenes SPECIFICALLY filmed JUST for the trailer.
Bitching about it at this late date basically requires that you turn your fucking brain COMPLETELY off.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but in your example you actually got the cover with the Aztec cover art. It's part of the product you brought home with you.
However if the TV ad for that album featured thrash metal music, and the album was actually Zamfir then you'd have a bait-and-switch case.
This is now normal for movies (Score:5, Insightful)
I've lost count of how many "comedy" movies I've see where the movie didn't match up to the trailer. Specifically, I'm thinking of the movies where there are about 1-2 minutes of gut-busting scenes in the trailer, then you watch the movie only to find out that those 1-2 minutes were all the worthwhile comedy content in the whole movie. I've seen much the same with other movie genres. It is very disappointing.
The way Hollywood cranks out movies now it is little better than an assembly-line. Worse, perhaps, because a decent assembly-line generally produces good quality products. It is one of the reasons there is rarely more than one movie a year that makes me want to actually go to the theater.
The other category of trailer lies (Score:4, Insightful)
The current "suit" is for the other kind of trailer lies.
I'm thinking of the movies where there are about 1-2 minutes of gut-busting scenes in the trailer, then you watch the movie only to find out that those 1-2 minutes were all the worthwhile comedy content in the whole movie.
In this case, you whatch the movie and don't even see those 1-2 minutes from the trailer that were worthwhile.
Because, by the time the executives are done meddling with the movie, those scenes didn't even make it to the final cut that was released in theater.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, you whatch the movie and don't even see those 1-2 minutes from the trailer that were worthwhile. Because, by the time the executives are done meddling with the movie, those scenes didn't even make it to the final cut that was released in theater.
Good point. I guess that in either case the trailer gives a deceptive view what the movie will contain. Most movies nowadays are rubbish, so I tend to be picky about what movies I watch. In 99% of the cases I wait for the movie to come out on DVD, and check out the reputable reviews (not necessarily just the IMDB star rating) so I don't waste my time/money.
Re:This is now normal for movies (Score:4, Insightful)
The worst case of all might be Sucker Punch. The trailer not only bears no relation to the film, it shows the film as an entirely different genre. See the trailer for what looks like an action-packed somewhat-strange film with many fight scenes and stunts, instead end up with a drama-fantasy about a woman's internal struggle to process abuse. The trailer scenes are in there, but they are only allegorical representations that bear no relation to the actual plot.
The title is rather appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Now imagine that they cut those 2 minutes out of the movie, so you don't even get to see those.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Back story? A dude in love got cancer and was subject to an experiment that was supposed to make him a super weapon unbeknown to him but he managed to escape by burning the place to the ground and worked his way up to the people who did it via a killing spree.
Thank Christ they didn't try to explain that simple arse backstory any more than they already did. It's the kind of back story that puts a cinema to sleep. Oh and back story scenes contributed to a good 1/3 of that movie, you just may not realise it si
"Threatened" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It would seem a lot of people agree to some extent which is why it's gained steam in the media in general. Not sure a 12 year old can actually file a lawsuit, parents might have to do it for him/her.
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem a lot of people agree to some extent which is why it's gained steam in the media in general.
Quite frankly "a lot" seem to describe a few delusional DC fans who are butthurt that Suicide Squad wasn't as good as the Avengers. Seriously there are far FAR worse movies out there, and the advertisements seem to have been spot on with the movie I saw, but for some reason this movie has brought sue happy ASD freaks out of the woodworks.
The only really strange thing here is how does this garbage make it to Slashdot.
I think I'll sue Slashdot because this site should be news for nerds, stuff that matters, an
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, a third grader threatened to commit mass homicide unless his demand for return of his backpack is met with due haste.
Re: (Score:2)
How it this news? A 12 year old says something stupid on reddit and it ends up on the front page of Sladhdot?
Thank you. This entire thread should consist of only one post: Reddit (sigh) /thread
weird (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Refund him the ticket price (Score:2, Insightful)
Look, it's not their fault if some idiot drives 300 miles. It's only their fault for making a crappy movie, or rather for over-charging for it. If they gave that piece of crap away for free that would be just about right.
They owe him the ticket price. That's it.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw it free. T-Mobile gave away I don't know how many free tickets to Suicide Squad. But basically every American subscriber just had to use their Tuesday benefit and there you had it. Wonder how little faith the studio had in it to give away potentially millions of free opening day tickets. Talk about shameless promotion.
Re:Refund him the ticket price (Score:5, Funny)
The actual mystery is why drove 300 miles not kilometres.
Because Brits aren't nearly as metric as they sometimes claim to be. For instance, they buy fuel in litres but they use MPG for fuel efficiency. And then there is that weird thing where they measure their own weight in relation to big rocks.
Have fun storming the castle ... (Score:2)
This is the most blatant case of false advertising (Score:5, Funny)
This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story. Ask for a trail by jury
Re:This is the most blatant case of false advertis (Score:4, Funny)
This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story. Ask for a trail by jury
A jury - of his peers? ... from Reddit ... dear God.
Re: (Score:2)
a jury of pissed off movie goes who have issues with the high cost of food their.
Twister 1996 (Score:5, Interesting)
The first time I saw this bait-and-switch technique was with Twister in 1996. Advertising showed a scene filmed from a first person point of view across a big empty field with a tornado in the distance. Stuff was flying everywhere and far in the distance a large piece of construction equipment is pulled apart and then a huge tire comes flying at the camera. I thought that scene looked really cool, this was fairly early in the days of wow-factor CG special effects. After watching the movie in the theatre I realized that the scene was not in it.
It always irked me and I always thought it was a bit of bait-and-switch, and I'm glad that someone is trying to hold the studios accountable.
By the way I can't believe that back in 1996 my time was so invaluable to me that I would spend it going to a movie theatre to watch a movie like Twister. In the years since I've been incredibly much more selective. I never watch any of the brain dead CG fest superhero movies, or really any movie whose sole attraction is how much pointless eye candy they can put on the screen in each scene.
Re: (Score:2)
"Invaluable" was the wrong word, oops. I meant, "of such low value".
Also Hey Slashdot, I've been on this site for about 18 years now, still no edit button??? WTF? You guys should just move to the Disqus comments system. It is far superior to anything you've ever done.
Re: (Score:2)
"Invaluable" was the wrong word, oops. I meant, "of such low value".
That's "unvaluable".
Re: (Score:3)
The Edit button is never coming because it would allow people to change their posts after people have replied to them. Without a means to edit you know the post looks the way it did when it was originally submitted.
This is what PREVIEW is for, check your stuff for typoes before actually submitting.
Re: (Score:2)
Or one can just edit using the preview option combined with time.
Re: (Score:3)
I understand that logic.
But what's wrong with allowing edit until someone replies? Or even allow edit up until someone begins to compose a reply. And then, if the original author is editing, and the person wanting to reply clicks reply, they get a helpful message saying "author is editing, reply not allowed until editing is complete/times out". I know it's a hassle to enumerate the possible combinations, but it wouldn't be too much AJAX to make it work.
However, making it work nicely with those using static HTML (who I support 100% BTW) is much trickier. For those users it becomes a bit more tedious. Their reply goes up to the server, but if an edit occurred before their reply was received, the reply content gets bounced back to the user and they are given a chance to edit it in context with the new post content. That way they can decide if their reply is still relevant. There is one more combination that would be robust, but may piss some users off as their new post/or edit (depending on how you want to slice it) would be bounced.
Anyway, I normally get paid quite well to work this stuff out for my clients. Slashdot certainly isn't paying me enough to write any more than this...
This system also adds a bunch of complexity, runs a lot of scripts that need to be maintained, potentially introduces a vector for security bugs, slows down comment writing by potentially a significant amount, and breaks the page for people who disable advanced JavaScript. Furthermore, if your comment is valuable, it will usually get a reply pretty quickly, rendering the whole system mute. It sounds weird, but there's a reason why there isn't one after all these years, and it's not because the idea wasn't c
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with everything you wrote, except for this "breaks the page for people who disable advanced JavaScript".
When I wrote "static HTML" this means no JavaScript at all. In my humble opinion all websites should work with JavaScript disabled entirely.
Psychologically there is something about editing that you must consider. Not everyone can do it. Do you know anyone who claims they can't edit text on the computer? They have to print it out and edit in hard copy? There is no doubt there are some real complica
Re: (Score:2)
Twister's one of my guilty pleasures. It's cheesy, but it's not badly put together, for what it is. I came away from that movie extremely enthusiastic about the idea of being a storm chaser, until I realized I'd probably need to live in Oklahoma or Kansas to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
The one that irked me (to the point that I remember it, anyway) was...that one Highlander movie with Adrian Paul that made it into theaters. I was a big fan of the TV series already; trailers had the villain doing a bunch of magic that adolescent-me thought would make him a unique threat to be faced. Movie comes out, nothing like that to be seen. The villain's most threatening move is hiding a dagger up his sleeve. Half the TV episodes had more impressive opponents.
Re: (Score:2)
In the years since I've been incredibly much more selective. I never watch any of the brain dead CG fest superhero movies, or really any movie whose sole attraction is how much pointless eye candy they can put on the screen in each scene.
I agree with your first sentence, but not the second. The whole point of having a big and high quality screen like the movie theatre is to enjoy the eye candy. A good drama with little visuals is just as enjoyable on a small screen at home. As for comedies, the jury is out: it's nice to laugh together with other people, but I tend to laugh at completely different scenes than most people.
Re: (Score:2)
It always irked me and I always thought it was a bit of bait-and-switch, and I'm glad that someone is trying to hold the studios accountable.
This would worry me too if I were paying for a movie by the scene. But this is not a restaurant. They aren't advertising a beef goulash and then not offering it to you on the menu as a choice.
The problem with Twister is not that a single scene was not included in the cut. That isn't an issue since they are advertising a story. The problem is the story doesn't match up. The Twister trailer was a story about a natural disaster. The Twister movie was a story about storm chasers. To me this is the far worse off
Boy will he be surprised by his Russian bride (Score:2)
Seriously, though. It's not like the movie was called Joker and Friends.
You can see those cuts in the Director's Gold Cut edition of Suicide Squad when it's released, only $250.
Re: (Score:2)
for real ? (Score:2)
This and the rotten tomatoes thing makes me wonder if people really get so emotional about a friggin' movie or if that's all an ad campaign to keep it in the headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
He HAD to drive 300 miles to London? (Score:3)
Sane people would simply visit their local cinema where the exact same movie got released on the exact same day as everywhere else in the UK. Rational people would wait for some critical consensus to form to justify their decision to visit rather than basing their expectations on studio hype and bullshit.
So I must surmise he is completely fucking stupid or a troll.
Foul play (Score:2)
They called the movie Suicide squad but none are committed to the act and no one actually committed suicide.
12 million your honour, I was distraught!
Re: (Score:2)
Kid, you're 12.. Tough Shit (Score:2)
Welcome to the real world.
Duh (Score:2)
It bothers me (Score:2)
It bothers me that this is actually LESS idiotic than the petition against Rotten Tomatoes. This (while stupid) at least bumps up against reality somewhere.
Mind you, it'd be nice if the trailers kind of reflected the movie to some degree, but I suspect that's more than Hollywood can handle.
File briefs at getalife.org (Score:3)
The Joker (Score:2)
they filmed over 2 hours worth of Joker footage and didn't use but so many minutes of them.
They got enough to make a movie about The Joker with the Joker scenes they didn't even use. I'm sure it could have taken on an R rating and gone against Deadpool's movie.
Alfred Hitchcock (Score:2)
Better not show this fan any Alfred Hitchcock trailers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
BlackPanther2016 (Score:3)
Jared, is that you?
Somebody WANTED to see the Joker scenes? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The disclaimer was actually there. It was shown in infrared, but it's clearly readable with night vision goggles.
Re: (Score:2)
The disclaimer was actually there. It was shown in infrared, but it's clearly readable with night vision goggles.
...but displayed so quickly, only your subconscious is aware of it: a warm fuzzy feeling of "ah well, it's just a movie, and $9 [variety.com] isn't that much money..."
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
...but displayed so quickly, only your subconscious is aware of it: a warm fuzzy feeling of "ah well, it's just a movie, and $9 isn't that much money...
How are movie trailers and the current US election process alike?
1. What you see is not what you get.
2. You get a hopeful feeling during the campaigning, to be replaced by a horrible feeling a few months after the election.
3. You wonder what your friends are smoking to be so in love with the other (movie / candidate).
4. You can't wait for the next one.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
right on, they should be watching action and romance anime, and reading manga/LN, the immature little boys!
Re: (Score:2)
Sports? Social drinking? Sounds like things riajuus do to waste their lives. Riajuus should just go explode.
Re:Oh get over yourself you absurd man-child (Score:5, Funny)
had this been about a piece of software... (Score:2)
no one would've made a fuss over it; since everyone knew the actual product will always have deferred features.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is the ad agency that produced the trailer also dissolved, as well as the television channels and theatres that carried the trailer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually thought that Deadshot was the character they fleshed out most, although they certainly did feature Harley Quinn quite a bit more than the others, for plainly obvious reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Roll up, ladies and gentleman, and look at my product. Here, see what we will do for you, we'll do this. Brilliant isn't it? So cool, I hear you say. Just 9.99 and you can see this.
Oh. You bought it. Yeah, that's you're lot.
You need a better lawyer hat - false advertising is basically fraud. You can't claim that the trailer is just there for people to watch the trailer. It's there as a preview of the movie (they even CALL them previews INSIDE the trailer). So, yeah, minor detail changes, a couple o