I would like to see fast good joints that advertise tall, juicy and fresh burgers only to deliver a flat and lifeless burgers sued for false advertising as well. There should have to be some degree of likeness, not a dream that your burger might look like this.<p>This goes for all food advertising....
My favorites are trailers with deleted scenes/lines, or the trailer for a "comedy" that includes the only funny joke (perhaps the only joke at all) in the entire film.<p>But I understand why the former are created, since trailers are often made before the film is finished. Also sometimes films are adjusted after preview screenings. Often the music doesn't seem to be finished either - I've seen several trailers that substituted (snippets of) iconic classical music pieces (such as the overture from Carmen, "O Fortuna" from Carmina Burana, "Dies Irae" from Mozart's Requiem, etc.) that weren't used in the finished film.
> "...say they forked over $3.99 each to watch the Richard Curtis comedy on Amazon Prime, only to discover..."<p>This caught my eye. I knew the film Yesterday to be a Danny Boyle (director) film, so I initially though they must be referring to another film with the same name. But down below they later confirm it IS the same movie.<p>Why is this article framing the screenwriter (Richard Curtis) as the filmmaker? Is this a convention of French culture? To give the writer prime creative credit over the director? Nothing against screenwriters; they're arguably just (if not more) important to shaping the story. It just strikes me as very strange.
I would love to be able to sue over agonizingly unfaithful adaptations.<p>The sexy dwarf winks at the camera and turns to the elf woman:‘Aren’t you going to frisk me? I could have anything down my trousers…!’
Hmm, as much as I dislike advertising (which is packed with all kinds of lies, not just about the cast of a movie), their loss here doesn't seem to justify a suit? I mean, $3.99 for a disappointing rental, that can't even be worth taking to Small Claims can it?