Ana De Armas’ absence from yesterday’s flick causes a major global legal headache – Deadline

yesterdayAnd the worldwideSuddenly their troubles aren’t so far away, at least when it comes down to it Ana de Armasabsence from 2019 Danny Boyle directed flick yesterday.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson wrote in a Dec. 20 ruling on the studio’s failed motion to dismiss a potential class action lawsuit first filed in January by Paul Michael Rosa and Connor Wolfe. “At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a movie by providing consumers with a preview of the movie,” the federal judge continued.Read it here)

Trailer Version of the $5 Million Suit: In July and October of 2021, Maryland-based Wolf and California-based Rosa saw a trailer for the suit. Himesh Patel-a pioneering romcom that featured de Armas as the love interest. Both fans rented the movie soon after about a musician who wakes up knowing all the Beatles songs in a world where the Beatles didn’t even exist. 1 point (in a deep voice): De Armas was nowhere in the picture.

right Now blond The actress was cut yesterday Completely.

Screenwriter Curtis said, “I think the audience didn’t like the fact that his eyes were wandering.” cinemablend In 2019 for Patel’s Jack Malik and why she left De Armas’ Roxanne character, as well as the subplot surrounding her on the cutting room floor.

That could be the technical and narrative reason, and that’s fair. However, Wolf and Rosa felt cheated by de Armas’s presence yesterday Trailer, and he didn’t like being taken for suckers. Respondent advertisement and promotion of the film yesterday She is false, misleading and misleading.”

Despite the Comcast-owned studio and their attorneys Munger Tolles and Olson’s best efforts to put this lawsuit in the past, Judge Wilson agreed with a lot of where the plaintiffs and their army of attorneys came from.

“In short, Universal has indicated that no non-commercial speech can intertwine with the trailer, and the interlocking exception does not inextricably apply to the commercial speech doctrine,” he wrote yesterday in developing the matter for discovery and potential class testimony. “Thus, because the plaintiffs have reasonably alleged that the trailer is fake, commercial rhetoric, the plaintiffs may proceed with their claims without offending the First Amendment.”

Although Justice Wilson has also made it clear in his ruling that “the court’s decision is limited to representations of whether she is an actress or a scene in the film, and nothing else,” his ruling could complicate matters in the loose goose consortium. With this example off the first time a Hollywood movie trailer shows someone who isn’t or hardly in a movie or even footage that isn’t from the one planned, the big picture here is that the exaggeration visually, verbally, etc. in the trailers, you may have to tone it down or Take a big risk.

Universal did not respond to a request from Deadline for comment yesterday Yesterday’s rule. Comcast-owned companies usually set a standard line of not commenting on litigation when they respond to questions about litigation. Universal will eventually have to respond to the ramifications of yesterday’s ruling in court, and then the December 20th decision itself could serve as a trailer for a much more epic event.