In Dyer v. Childress (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1273, plaintiff financial consultant claimed the screenwriter, director, and producers of the motion picture "Reality Bites" used his name for the main character in the story and misrepresented his actual persona, even though he was not in any way connected with the movie or its subject matter. The court stated the central issue "concerned the asserted misuse of plaintiff's persona." The court explained that although the movie may have addressed topics of widespread public interest, there was no connection between those topics and plaintiff's causes of action. (Id. at p. 1280.) Distinguishing Terry v. Davis Community Church (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1534, and M. G., supra, 89 Cal.App.4th 623, the court reasoned plaintiffs in those cases "directly were connected to an important issue of public significance" whereas plaintiff financial consultant "was not part of any public discussion and was not connected to any such discussion." (Dyer, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 1282.) Finding no connection between the movie's subject matter and plaintiff, the court concluded defendants failed to show the activity underlying plaintiff's complaint was in furtherance of defendants' constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or issue of public interest. (Id. at p. 1284.) In sum, in Dyer v. Childress, the plaintiff, Troy Dyer, sued several defendants, including Universal City Studios, for defamation and false light invasion of privacy on the grounds he had been portrayed in an unflattering light in the movie Reality Bites, which addressed issues facing Generation X in the 1990's. (Dyer, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1276-1277.) The Dyer court affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendants' special motion to strike, reasoning that "the representation of Troy Dyer in the movie as a rebellious slacker is not a matter of public interest and there is no discernable public interest in Dyer's persona. Although Reality Bites may address topics of widespread public interest, defendants are unable to draw any connection between those topics and Dyer's defamation and false light claims." (Id. at p. 1280.)