One of Tom Cruise's films made a fan so mad they were able to get a refund
Topics: Tom Cruise, Film and TV, Entertainment
Emily Brown
Featured Image Credit: Paramount Pictures
Topics: Tom Cruise, Film and TV, Entertainment
While you always want a trip to the cinema to go well, unfortunately there are just some movies that don't deliver in the way you want them to.
Most people brush this off as a lesson learned and continue on with their lives, satisfied enough in the fact that they got to enjoy some popcorn, but others want payback for their wasted time. When I say 'payback', I mean they literally want to get back what they paid.
A trip to the cinema can be expensive, so one New Zealand film fan decided to do everything in their power to get a refund after being left disappointed by one of Tom Cruise's movies.
See the culprit below:
Advert
The incident took place shortly after the release of Jack Reacher in 2012; an action-packed movie in which Cruise's character sets about investigating the case of a former US Army sniper who has been accused of killing five people.
Jack Reacher has a pretty positive Rotten Tomatoes score of 63 percent and did well enough to warrant a sequel in 2016, but it's safe to say it didn't go down well with everyone.
One film fan decided to write a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority after a scene advertised in the trailer didn't appear as they'd hoped on the big screen.
They complained that the scene with the "explosion where the whole cliff comes down" was the "defining part of the ad that made me really want to go see the movie ... aside from having Tom Cruise in it."
When the film was released, however, the same explosion was nowhere to be seen.
Responding to the argument that the viewer had been misled, Paramount Pictures admitted that the advert was released before the final edit of the film, meaning the explosion didn't end up making it in.
The company claimed it was a 'usual and longstanding practice' in the film industry for cinema trailers and television advertisements to be produced before completion of the film, explaining: "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."
It further commented: "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".
Despite defending themselves, Paramount did offer the customer a refund for the ticket and deemed the complaint 'settled'.
The Commercial Approvals Bureau was responsible for approving the advert for television and expressed belief the ad posed 'no threat of confusion to the large majority of TV viewers'. They therefore concluded that the complaint should not be upheld.
Hopefully the refund of the movie will at least have been enough to buy the customer some good snacks for their next - ideally more successful - cinema trip.
If you have a story you want to tell, send it to UNILAD via [email protected]