No fake ads! Ana de Armas’ absence from ‘Yesterday’ movie puts trailers in legitimate spotlight

Yesterday, Universal’s problems suddenly weren’t so far away, at least when it comes to Ana de Armas’ absence from the Danny Boyle-directed 2019 film Yesterday.

“Universal is correct that trailers require a certain amount of creativity and editorial discretion, but that creativity is outweighed by the commercial nature of a trailer,” U.S. District Judge Steven Wilson wrote in a Dec. 20 ruling on the largely unsuccessful Motion Studios to dismiss. the potential class action. first submitted in January by Paul Michael Rosza and Conor Woulfe. “At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a film by giving consumers a preview of the film,” the federal judge continued (read it here).

Preview version of the $5 million suit: In July and October 2021, Woulfe of Maryland and Rosza of California watched a trailer for the Himesh Patel-directed romcom in which de Armas was a love interest. Both fans soon rented the film about a musician who, knowing every Beatles song, wakes up in a world where the Beatles never existed. One catch (in a deep voice): The Armas were nowhere to be found in the picture.

now Blonde Actress was cut out Yesterday rather.

“I don’t think audiences really liked it when their eyes wandered,” screenwriter Curtis told me tiltable in 2019 by Patel’s Jack Malik and why the Roxanne character was left on the cutting room floor by Armas, as well as the subplot surrounding her.

This may be the artistic and narrative reason, and it is fair. However, Woulfe and Rosza felt betrayed by the Armas’ presence in the city Yesterday Followers and didn’t like being thought of as funny. “Advertising and promotion of the film by the defendant Yesterday is false, misleading and deceptive,” her Jan. 21 lawsuit against Universal said.

Despite the efforts of the Comcast studio and their lawyers at Munger Tolles and Olson to file this lawsuit in the past, Judge Wilson broadly agreed with where the plaintiffs and their army of lawyers were coming from.

“Finally, Universal has indicated that there is no non-commercial speech that should be interwoven with the trailer, and the inextricable exception to the commercial speech doctrine does not apply,” he wrote yesterday in a case that involve discovery and potential class certification. . “Because plaintiffs have plausibly argued that the trailer is improper trade language, plaintiffs may proceed with their claims without violating the First Amendment.”

While Judge Wilson also noted in his ruling that “the discretion of the court is limited to statements as to whether an actress or scene appears in the film and nothing else,” his ruling will help place the case in the tumultuous galaxy of trailers. settled. , it’s far from the first Hollywood movie trailer to feature someone who ends up not or barely appearing in any film or even footage other than the pitching photo. The big picture here is that the hyperbole, visual, verbal, and otherwise of followers, may need to tone down or risk greater accountability.

Universal did not respond to Deadline’s request for comment Yesterday statement yesterday. Usually, companies in Comcast enforce a standard rule that they do not comment on litigation when responding to litigation questions. Universal will eventually have to respond to the fallout from yesterday’s court ruling, and then the Dec. 20 decision could prove itself as a trailer for a much more epic event.