Is woman justified in suing over 'Drive' trailer?
At first blush, I scoffed at this story about a women suing the distributor of the Ryan Gosling film "Drive" because she felt tricked by the film's trailer.
Here are the details: Sarah Deming saw the trailer for "Drive" which reminded her of the action film "Fast and the Furious." Based on that impression, Deming bought her ticket for "Drive," settled in, and found herself watching a film that was nothing like what she expected, based on the trailer she'd seen.
According to the lawsuit, "'Drive' bore very little similarity to a chase, or race action film ... having very little driving in the motion picture." Moreover, Deming found that the film's stance on Judaism was offensive. The suit continues, "'Drive' was a motion picture that substantially contained extreme gratuitous defamatory dehumanizing racism directed against members of the Jewish faith, and thereby promoted criminal violence against members of the Jewish faith."
So the question is, does Deming have a point here? Filing a lawsuit might be a tad extreme, but there are few things that irritate me more than when it feels like I've been sold one movie only to have seen another (my go-to case in point, "Jack," with Robin Williams. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FUNNY. It so was not.)
To a far lesser degree, Hugh Jackman's "Real Steel"has done something sort of similar, burying the fact that it's really more a feel-good family film above all else. Sure, anyone who spends a bare minimum of time Googling movie reviews will be armed with exponentially more intel than what a trailer offers, but should you have to fact check a trailer? I'm curious what you think, and what films you were surprised by, after relying on a trailer. Weigh in below!