Sarah Deming has sued the distributor of the critically acclaimed Ryan Gosling thriller DRIVE under Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act, saying it was promoted “as very similar to the Fast and Furious, or similar, series of movies” but “bore very little similarity to a chase, or race action film…having very little driving in the motion picture.” The suit aims for class-action status. [Lawyerist, Guardian]
23 Comments
…this is the most blatant case of fraudulent advertising since my suit against the film, “The Never-Ending Story.”
–Lionel Hutz, Esq.
That was exactly my first thought, Jason. Life Imitates Art. If you google, you can find the clip of this scene.
The audience at my showing of “Drive” was so bored and annoyed that they began to shout out very funny dialog during the endless silent pauses between the excceding sparse and minimal lines.
Someone would knock at the door in the movie, which the audience then proceeded to convert into an X-rated “knock-knock” joke. Etc.
But to start a lawsuit becuse this snooze-fest was advertised as an action flick? Loser Pays please.
Can this be made into a class action suit? Where do I sign up? Can all of the critics who gave rave reviews be named as co-defendants?
[…] One can only pray that the circuit court of Oakland County Michigan won’t join the scoffers and mockers who have silenced this man in the […]
People should sue over having to watch two hours of junk. Doctors and lawyers are sued for malpractice. Why not the movie industry?
We can sue for this? Boy, I’ve sat through a bunch of stinkers over the years: Cut Thoat Island, all the new Star Wars, Speed 2… The trailers always made it look good.
Gitesh Pandya predicted a similar reaction prior to Drive’s release in his boxofficeguru.com blog. His analysis of the film’s box office potential prior to its release is here http://www.boxofficeguru.com/091411.htm :
“The marketing [for Drive] has promised a fast-paced action thrill ride – like another Fast & Furious – while the film actually has a much slower pace with fewer car chases than ads would lead one to believe…mainstream popcorn audiences pulled in by high-octane commercials and trailers may spread bad word-of-mouth if their expectations walking into the theater are not met.”
The MCPA prohibits certain types of false advertising for certain types of goods and services. Damages are $250.00 or actual, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorney fees.
The lawsuit I filed asks for a warning for this movie, or some similar remedy for this movie (not all misleading trailers as the press is reporting).
The class action is for this movie, not “all movies that had misleading trailers”.
How about class actions suits against all those movies where the best parts were in the trailer and there was no need to spend $6-15 on the movie itself?
But for the statute of limitations kimsch, I could retire on the interest for my damages on the “Better Off Dead” trailer.
“That’s a shame, folks throwin’ away a perfectly good white boy like that.”
Kimsch:
A lot of people are complaining about that.
Heh, why didn’t they think of this when Million Dollar Baby came out? I remember tons of people were expecting a feel-good movie based on the trailer.
Gazing at my pack of Everlasting Gobstoppers…hmmm….
I have to say, Martin, your point that the law suit only covers “Drive” is a just bit disingenuous, don’t you think? A victory in such a case would open the floodgates for similar class actions regarding other films. Any time a new theory of recovery is put forth, and in the case of films, this is certainly one, it raises the possibility of a whole new, and for plaintiffs and attorneys, lucrative cause of action. Sometimes that’s a good thing, when a genuine injustice has been continuing without remedy. Other times…not so much.
Leafs004, I liked Cuthroat Island.
Ben, well, this poses a quandry. I thought the movie was a waste of 2 hours of my life, you liked it, so how can we litigate this case against the producers on something that’s so subjective? Next thing you’ll be telling me we’ll just have to agree to disagree and let people make their own decisions if they want to see a movie based on the trailers, reviews, and what their friends say…
Leafs004 The claim here is not that liability flows from the poor quality of the movie, but rather (based on the press reports) that its trailer deliberately misrepresented it as being of a different genre than it really was.
That kind of misrepresentation is very rare, which is why I quoted the BoxOfficeGuru blog above that remarked on its presence. He wouldn’t have remarked on it if its occurrence had not been so unusual.
An analogy would be if you buy a pack of frozen food with a picture of a chicken drumstick on it but instead you got sliced frozen turkey. Whether turkey is “better” or “worse” than chicken is irrelevant to a claim that the frozen food’s advertising misrepresented turkey as chicken. (It’s relevant to damages perhaps, but not to liability).
Personally, I haven’t seen the movie, but having seen Ryan Gosling’s insufferable preening in “Lincoln Lawyer” I strongly suspect this lawsuit will be a whole lot more fun to watch than the movie would be.
Mr. Leaf, maybe Sarah Deming is too dumb to realize that there are numerous reviews that she can read before she decides to go to a movie but I am sure that you know that. Wouldn’t it have been so much kinder to tell her that next time she should read the reviews so that she can learn what the movie is actual about rather than making a laughing stock out of her by having her lawsuit broadcast all over the Internet. Incidentally, taking this case doesn’t make you look like Clarence Darrow either. Are you sure that it is worth being mocked this severely ( http://www.popehat.com/2011/10/10/it-would-be-a-tragedy-if-americas-death-wish-came-to-fruition-before-deming-v-filmdistrict-distribution-goes-to-trial/ ) just on the off chance that you can make a few bucks. The only thing I can conclude is that the lawyering business in Michigan must be very slow for you to take this case.
Well put, Richard.
Not to mention to fact that it is standard practice for studios to purposely jigger trailers to focus on certain aspects of their films to target specific demos. We all have seen markably different trailers for the same film, each one highlighting different scenes or actors, using thematic hip-hop music for the ad on Adult Swim, AC/DC type music when the ad airs during a football game, wimpy, sensitive acoustic music for the ‘Housewives’ watchers, etc.
How dare those studios beguile and seduce us with purposed flashy ads for their products? It’s like all they want is to make money or something! If only there was a way to find out about those films before we shell out our hard earned cash, like some sort of electronic thingy that connects to other electronic doodads and somehow forms images and words on a tv like screen to communicate… oh, if only.
Hello asdfasdf, yes, I actually got the point of the litigation, but I was having some fun with the idea of subjectiveness. I started my career in Hollywood.
Part of the issue is here is a failure to understand how trailers are made. You probably believe that the film is shot, edited, then the trailer is made. The shooting time line doesn’t allow for this because in many cases the marketing for a large Hollywood film starts up to a year or more in advance. Often trailers are cut based on PRINCIPAL footage. The reason the best parts were in the trailer? Because those scenes will be in the movie.
If you’re really observant, you may notice that some scenes in trailers were not in the movie. And in at least one case, a minor actress who was featured in the trailer and the posters, was cut from the final product. I can’t speak specifically about Drive, but I’d be willing to guess when the trailer was formed, the producers knew the car chases were definately in the movie, but the rest of the story line was a work in progress. They probably had a good idea what it would look like, but it’s pretty embarassing when half the scenes in the trailer are on the editing room floor. So they took the safe route – show the car chases.
Those scenes are in the movie, but you may feel that it was misleading, well, here’s the subjectiveness. All the scenes in the trailer are in the movie, so it was not false, but you were expecting more car scenes. To use your analogy, you bought a frozen dinner with a picture of a big juicy chicken drumstick, but when you opened the package, you received a tiny one instead. Still may be false advertising, but when you consider how and when trailers are made, you can understand how misperceptions rise.
This argument reminds me of the viral “romantic comedy” trailer for The Shining, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfout_rgPSA . “Sometimes what we need most is just around the corner.”
Which critics would pan, word would spread among movie goers, the movie would disappear from the theatre from poor viewership, and the investors would be taking tax writeoffs for their investment.