Here's an interesting story from my part of the world -- obviously scenes are in trailers all the time that aren't in the actual film but this is the first I've heard of a suit over it! What do you think?

Big bang deleted, so it's a refund
By Kieran Campbell

A Hollywood movie company has offered to refund the cost of a ticket for a New Zealander who complained of false advertising because a "split-second" cliff explosion shown in the trailer of a Tom Cruise thriller wasn't in the movie.

The disgruntled viewer complained to the Advertising Standards Authority that the "explosion where the whole cliff comes down" in the trailer for the movie Jack Reacher was "the defining part of the ad that made me really want to go see the movie ... aside from having Tom Cruise in it".

Paramount Pictures has admitted the error, saying the promo for the action thriller was released before the final edit of the film.

As a result, the "split-second" scene showing the cliff explosion was used to promote the movie but was cut from the film before it was shown in cinemas.

Although the film company defended the trailer, which showed at least two other scenes not in the movie, it offered to refund the cost of the cinema ticket to the complainant, named by the ASA only as J. Congdon.

Paramount Pictures said it was a "usual and longstanding practice in the film industry that cinema trailers and television advertisements" be produced to promote a film weeks or months before completion of the film's final editing.


"Thus, despite our best intentions, it is always possible that certain scenes appearing in an advertisement or trailer may not appear in the final version of a film," the company told the ASA.

Paramount Pictures said "the explosion in question was a single split-second element omitted from a 130-minute long action film and [we] believe that, taken as a whole, the impression created by the advertisement was a true and fair reflection of the film which could not reasonably be considered misleading or deceptive to customers".

As the advertisement had ceased airing and Paramount Pictures had offered the ticket refund, the ASA deemed the complaint "settled".

The Commercial Approvals Bureau, which approved the trailer to be aired on television, believed the advertisement posed "no threat of confusion to the large majority of TV viewers", and the complaint should not be upheld.

This is awesome, maybe I can finally get a refund for TWISTER (truck tire in trailer NOT in movie!).

While I'm glad this was nothing more than the refund of the ticket, it didn't need to go to court.

That said, I wonder if a company could make a trailer that included no footage that ended up in the movie. Wouldn't that be some kind of false advertising? It's interesting to think about.

Video game trailers have been doing that for years.

I've gotten a free ticket when the theater cut the end credits off a film.

I honestly thought about that. Don't they include some fine print these days?

I thought they had to put a disclaimer that it wasn't in-game footage but then there was that Dead Island trailer, so who knows.

Shame nobody sued Dimension Films over the trailers to Highlander: Endgame. Those trailers featured mostly footage shot exclusively for the trailers. Even whole special effects sequences were rendered exclusively for the trailers.

And in that case, the movie ended up being better than the trailer!

They'd have a field day with The Master.

Or Paranormal Activity 3

I was ready to call BS because of what today is, but then I realized it's tomorrow in New Zealand...

Great, now they'll add messages in trailers saying "Scenes shown may not be included in the final movie." But I have always wondered when this happens, how such scenes were deemed good enough to be included in the trailer (out of ALL the other scenes they could have picked), but not good enough to be in the final film.

Hitchcock made trailers that didn't contain any footage. NxNW, Psycho, The Birds.

I would like to sue everybody who went to see Highlander: Endgame... for promoting foul and filth!

Sure. I'm just wondering if you could make a trailer showing nothing but explosions and gunfights and the movie itself was two guys sitting at a dinner table. You aren't getting what you're paying for, are you?

Like I said, it's interesting.

There was an article on this in Premiere magazine back in the late 80's. There is a scene in the commercial for Dirty Rotten Scoundrels where Steve Martin & Michael Caine are walking next to a river and one of them pushes someone into the water. The scene was only shot for the trailer so the article talked about how more movies are included scenes in the commercials that aren't in the actual movie.

I too am glad that he only got a refunded ticket and not some kind of crazy financial restitution.

It is an interesting discussion though. I saw the the teaser trailer for Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and I don't think I would have felt ripped off because it wasn't included in the actual film. If it was in the film, it would have seemed pretty awkward considering there's no point to them just pushing people into the water. It's just telling the audience what kind of characters these two are and what type of story to expect.

About in game footage. I think that would piss me off more. But then again, after seeing the trailers for The Force Unleashed II, none of them were in the game, and one particular scene ended up looking drastically different, and not nearly as detailed. But I didn't feel ripped off or cheated at all. My only complaint was that the game was too short, but the in-game footage that was there was all top notch.

I think what it comes down to is how many people feel cheated by the trailer. For example, if THE DARK KNIGHT RISES trailer had shown a never-before-seen clip of Heath Ledger's Joker in the film, and it came across that somehow he has a cameo in the film, and yet he never appears in the actual film, I think that would be a case of false advertising.

A split second explosion in an action movie full of other explosions though? I don't know how many people would notice that stuff. Maybe I'm too desensitized to explosions in movies after seeing Transformers.

The Grey comes to mind.

If they include the scene on the DVD/BD release, does he have to give back the money?

I remember watching the Endgame movie and wondering where all the scenes I saw had gone.

In a bizarre turn of events, people had to pay to see the movie with scenes not shown in the trailer.

My refund would be for Hard Rain. I though the scene where the deputy says, "But you're the sheriff!" and Randy Quaid says, "Im the what?" was a very cool delivery and pretty chilling... Not in the movie at all. I was pissed (in movie terms pissed, not real life problems pissed)

Where's my $4!

Can one sue for cock teasing? I've been waiting for over a decade for bare Aniston nipplege.