It's an interesting question, because film trailers are often made before the final edit of the film itself is finished, so having things in the trailer than then end up on the cutting room floor is actually not that uncommon. But the director would probably argue that the final cut of the film is the best version, so therefore the product you're paying for is improved compared to what's in the trailer. So what the guy is actually saying is equivalent to 'You advertise a car that turned out to have a fault and you fixed that fault before the car actually went on sale but I should get my money back because you didn't sell me a car with a fault'.

There's legal, decent, honest and truthful, but there's also logical and realistic. The trailer was certainly legal, it was 'decent' insofar as it didn't go out to offend.. 'honest and truthful'? Did it really mis-sell the film by showing one very short piece of action that didn't make the final edit? Really?

Isn't the ultimate extension of this logic that no film should be sold that has anything that wasn't in the trailer in it? Because, obviously, then you're being asked to pay for something you haven't seen yet and that can't be absolutely guaranteed to be honest can it? So are we going to have 90 minute trailers or 2 minute films?

Adverts frequently do not represent reality. Women drinking diet cola do not suddenly find hunky men stripping in their vicinity. Using a particular herbal shampoo will not give you an orgasm. Eating 'randoms' fruit gums will not make you spout random word sequences like someone with massive brain trauma. Red Bull does not actually give you wings. The idea a film trailer should absolutely represent everything which may happen in the film it is advertising is fatuous and all this case proves is that occasionally, authority is an ass.

Jon

Jon,
I agree with you to a degree but not that there was a fault with the product advertised. A change was made that the complainant considered to be material, he claimed it was that scene (along with the presence of Tom Cruise) that made him want to see it. To extend your analogy, what the guy was saying was "you advertised a car with an 8 Track tape recorder but when you sold it it had a CD player, that was not what was advertised". It is a moot point if the change is considered an improvement or not. A trailer should represent what happens in the film, if I edit what appears to be a sex scene into my new remake of Mary Poppins, which is then not in the final cut, is that OK or could it be considered false advertising?

Advertising does bend the truth of course and it never ceases to amaze me how much bending they can get away with. But one of the key points, at least here in the UK is that many of the adverts are only reviewed if people or companies complain. I am amazed that Red Bull is allowed to get away with its slogan as that is manifestly untrue, but until there is a complaint and the lawyers get involved (or not) I guess the ASA are happy to let it continue.

The other point here is that the New Zealand ASA didn't make a ruling as such, the guy complained to the ASA, they notified Paramount who said OK, we'll give him his money back, everybody is satisfied no harm no foul. The guy he gets his money back and Paramount gets lots of column inches for their film across the world.

I may be being cynical here but I await with bated breath the DVD release "now with added scenes/directors cut etc."

I haven't seen the film, but I imagine that the presence of Tom Cruise (being a major cast member) was indeed present, along with lots of other things blowing up.
It's the poorest excuse to bring against the producers and I'm staggered that it was upheld.

Tim Burton Directing Christoph Waltz And Amy Adams In BIG EYES

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/61790
...


Brad Pitt to tank-battle some nazis in David Ayer's FURY

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/61799

TBH Can't say I have seen the film either or indeed the trailer, but it would appear you are correct with TC there in all his glory with much action and excitement going on for the 100 or so minutes of the films runtime.

The key thing is nothing was upheld, the guy complained, Paramount gave him his money back, the New Zealand ASA consider the matter closed. There was no adjudication, just Paramount seeing a very cheap way to but column inches for their film.

My point is that the excuse given that "trailers are cut weeks or months before the final cut of the film" is unacceptable. Why should a film company be allowed additional license to ignore the rules everyone else must follow? Give the job of cutting the trailers back to the director and let him do this after the final cut is complete. If you need to tease or whet the appetite of the viewing public, then be clever or make sure the beautifully crafted script you spent so much time and or money working on is going to stand up to the scrutiny of the test screenings process.

Sorry, if that became a bit of a rant, feel better now.

I'd be surprised if most directors would want to cut the trailers. That's like asking an author to provide sample chapters for the press - let the people who know how to sell get on with the selling. Just because you've been involved in the making of a film (or book) doesn't automatically mean you're the best person to do the selling. You're far too close to the text.
And, it's far from unusual to include scenes in a trailer that aren't in the final piece. Sometimes things are shot specifically for the trailer.
I've always assumed that a trailer is there to give a flavour and taste of what you can expect from the final piece - not necessarily be the entire film in microcosm. Much like any of the chocolate bars or deodorant adverts don't necessarily reflect the reality of using the product.


Good.

The obvious solution is to stop using film footage in adverts for films. Posters generally have a bunch of people posing in a fashion not scene in the final cut. so why not advertise on film in the same way? It might also appease those who don't want spoilers. There's a good case to be argued against watching the best 2 minutes of the film before you watch the film.

That would keep ernie happy.

As someone blessed with the ability to completely forget trailers I am not effected by spoilers in trailers. Though for the sake of others trailers should not contain spoilers. Though for many films the trailers contain the best bits of most films anyway.

This notion that trailers contain 'the best bits of the film' is endlessly irritating for me.
I find it akin to saying 'here look at this, it's the best bits from Guernica.'
It completely misses the fact a film is set up to take you on a journey, and you're no more capable of assessing what the 'best bit' is from the trailer than guessing what colour socks the editor was wearing.

http://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/editing-a-film-trailer/ is an interesting read, especially the NY Times piece linked in there.

No it wouldn't, I just want something that's been edited by someone with a clue and isn't stupidly long relative to the film!

From your link: "it has the power to turn turn viewers off completely if they feel like they’ve seen all the best bits with nothing left to surprise."


The "journey" in most action films is usually "good guy shows muscles, stops bad guy, gets girl". People only watch brainless action films to see fit actors and actresses, crazy stunts and impressive explosions. Big budgets are all about big special effects, and it's totally possible to show all the best bits in trailer.

In the case at hand, the explosion that impressed the most disappointingly wasn't even in the film...

Emphasis on the feel there.




I hope you'll forgive me, but if stuff blowing up is all you want from a film, the I find it hard to believe that either:
A. You view each explosion with a childlike naivety, and they are all special and different and beautiful and wonderful and seeing one in a trailer will absolutely sway your decision to go and see the film.
B. You view each explosion with a childlike naivety, and they are all special and different and beautiful and wonderful and seeing one in a trailer will rob you of the sweet caress of the first glimpse of it's fiery beauty, and HELL NO this shall not stand.

Both positions are ridiculous. It would also mean that everything Michael Bay touches never leaves the box office top ten.

Advertising is a funny business. Have you ever seen a burger served that looks like the one on the poster by the door? Has your enjoyment of Smirnoff been marred because you weren't suddenly swept into an action sequence on a train? Did the Judder Man fail to appear?
Does Vinnie The Panda actually represent Fox's biscuits?
Or, in fact, do we simply take it as given that there's an element of fantasy in any advertising?

For an example, the only good bit in Star Wars was when the Death Star blew up. It was special and different and beautiful and wonderful. I watched it with a childlike naivety and seeing it in a trailer would absolutely have ruined the experience.

I really like explosions. An awesome one makes me say "Awesome". I am not alone. Some people especially enjoy exploding caravans; they do it repeatedly and watch the uniqueness of every moment in slow motion... and get millions of viewers.