yesterday, Universal‘s troubles, at least for that matter, were suddenly not too far off. Ana de ArmasAbsent in 2019 Danny Boyle director flick yesterday.
“Universal is correct in its assertion that the trailer contains a degree of creativity and editorial discretion, but this creativity does not outweigh the commercial nature of the trailer,” said U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson at 12. On March 20, it ruled on a motion to dismiss the studio’s largely unsuccessful potential class action lawsuit. First submitted in January by Paul Michael Lozza and Connor Wolfe. “At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to market a movie by giving consumers a preview of the movie,” the federal judge said.read here)
Trailer version of the $5 million lawsuit: In July and October 2021, Maryland-based Woulfe and California-based Rosza Himesh Patel-A lead romcom that featured de Armas as a love interest. Both fans immediately rented a film about a musician who wakes up knowing every Beatles song in a world where The Beatles never existed. One catch (in a low voice): de Armas was nowhere to be found in the picture.
now blonde the actress was cut yesterday Overall.
Writer Curtis said, “I think the audience didn’t like the fact that even his eyes were pulled out.” Chinamarend In addition to the characters of Roxanne in 2019’s Patel’s Jack Malik and Why de Armas, the subplot surrounding her was left on the cutting room floor.
It may be for artistic and narrative reasons, but it’s fair. yesterday It was a trailer and didn’t like being taken by suckers. “Defendant’s film advertisements and publicity yesterday It is false, misleading and deceptive,” their Jan. 21 lawsuit declared against Universal.
Despite the best efforts of Comcast-owned studios and lawyers for Munger Tolles and Olson to put this case in the past, Judge Wilson has a lot to say about where the plaintiffs and their army of lawyers came from. I agree with you.
“In short, Universal does not point to non-commercial speech that may be intertwined with trailers, and the closely intertwined exception to the commercial speech principle does not apply,” the certification. “Thus, because plaintiffs plausibly allege that the trailer is false commercial speech, plaintiffs can proceed without violating the First Amendment.”
Judge Wilson also emphasized that in his ruling, “the judgment of the court is limited to the representation as to whether an actress or scene appears in the film, and nothing else.” However, his ruling was not the first time a Hollywood movie trailer featured a character who never or hardly appeared in the final film, or even the footage from the pitched image. not. You may need to tone it down or risk liability for big bucks.
Universal did not respond to Deadline’s request for comment. yesterday judgment yesterday. Generally, Comcast-owned companies have a standard policy of not commenting on litigation when responding to litigation questions. Universal will ultimately have to deal with the ramifications of yesterday’s court ruling, and the Dec. 20 ruling itself could be a preview of a much grander event.