Quote:
Originally Posted by CurrentlySober
Lets guess the Lawyers answer...
Yes, you may well have a case indeed - Very unfair... Now, if you give me shit loads of money I can begin to pursue it for you - But - No guarantees though - Bit like Star Wars...
|
I presented it as a pro bono case. I would never put my own money into a class action suit like this. I think rebates are in order, and punitive damages paid to a charity.
It will send a clear message to Hollywood studios. They can make crap films, but they can't lie about who is starring in the film.
I think 5% to 10% of the film's run time is not an unreasonable amount of the time a starring role should appear on screen, to qualify for the term "starring" and allow the studio to advertise the actor as such. In this case, Hamill would've had to been in the film 7 to 14 minutes of the 136 minute run time. Very reasonable. Not 15 seconds. That is unreasonable and advertising his role as "starring" is clearly fraudulent.