MGM DVD Lawsuit

UncleJoey · January 27, 2005, 04:17:52 PM

http://www.mgmdvdsettlement.com/

This affects me, I would assume it affects a lot of others around here as well. I can finally get my Prancer DVD replaced!

I can't believe MGM thought they would get away with this. In short, they simply chopped off the top of pan and scan versions of the films listed on the site linked above (some notables include Annie Hall, Silence of the Lambs, Spinal Tap - plenty of good titles) and called it widescreen. The only film I own that's eligible (I think . . . I'd have to look at the list again - only dvds bought between 98 and 2003 are eligible) is Spaceballs and I haven't watched that in a long time - probably before I knew any better.

Alethia · January 27, 2005, 04:40:36 PM

those motherfuckers, i own all three of the films you listed!! i dont really care though, they look fine to me.

Ghostboy · January 27, 2005, 04:48:47 PM

Jesus Christ, that's sheisty!

I only have a handful of MGM dvds, and I would never have known this just from watching the films...but the dishonesty on MGM's part is appalling.

modage · January 27, 2005, 04:53:22 PM

i think i have a ton of those titles. the crappy packaging should've been an indicator. i'm not quite sure how to get in on the class action though. it only says how to be 'excluded' not included.

SHAFTR · January 27, 2005, 05:25:17 PM

wow, how the mighty have fallen.

cine · January 27, 2005, 05:33:22 PM

Quote from: cinephile bought all three big woody allen box sets exactly one month ago today so he
SONOFABITCH MOTHERFUCKERS

Ravi · January 27, 2005, 06:05:45 PM

I hope you are all kidding with these responses, since 1.85:1 aspect ratio is made by framing in the center of the 1.37:1 frame and cropping it off at the projector.

How Film is Transferred to Video

It even says about Soft Matting: Some movies that have used this technique are: Spaceballs, Silence of the Lambs, Total Recall, Edward Scissorhands.

IOW, this lawsuit is bullshit.

Ghostboy · January 27, 2005, 06:38:30 PM

In the case of soft matte films, it's not as big a deal. But in other cases, a pan and scan transfer involves re-framing, and also electronic panning in certain shots. It's not so much about what's gained or lost at the bottom of the screen but preserving the integrity of the director's composition. By chopping off the bottom and top of a pan and scan transfer, it compromises that integrity even further, and to advertise it as an 'original aspect ratio' is downright wrong.

UncleJoey · January 27, 2005, 06:42:47 PM

Quote from: themodernage02i think i have a ton of those titles. the crappy packaging should've been an indicator. i'm not quite sure how to get in on the class action though. it only says how to be 'excluded' not included.

To request a Claim Form, call 1-800-285-2168 (toll free). Just be sure you know which titles you have that are affected before you call. I haven't called yet, so I don't know how big of a pain this is.

Quote from: cinephilecinephile bought all three big woody allen box sets exactly one month ago today

Then you aren't eligible (have to be purchased between December 1, 1998 to September 8, 2003), so I would assume that means your DVDs aren't messed up.

Ravi · January 27, 2005, 07:08:45 PM

Quote from: GhostboyBy chopping off the bottom and top of a pan and scan transfer, it compromises that integrity even further, and to advertise it as an 'original aspect ratio' is downright wrong.

But I don't think they're doing this. The people who started this lawsuit probably saw the fullframe versions and widescreen versions of the films, saw that the widescreen had less picture on top and bottom (which is normal for 1.85:1 films and Super 35 2.35:1) and assumed that MGM was doing something wrong.

RegularKarate · January 27, 2005, 07:22:52 PM

I've looked into this before.

This is more of a false advertiseing suit than anything else.

The man who started it said he thought it was misleading that MGM stated the dvds were "...offered in the widescreen format, enabling you to experience the picture exactly as it was originally shown in theatres. Depending on how the film was shot, the widescreen format presents up to 50% more image to the left and right of the screen than the standard "pan & scan" process , thus preserving the director's vision of each scene. Black bars at the top and bottom of the screen are normal for this format."

and as stated before, with the "full screen" versions of the soft-matted films, they're just taking the matte off... this means that the width of this picture is the exact same at full-screen as it is with "widescreen".

It's just some jackass that's pissing about not understanding how the matting process works.

MGM wouldn't really make any profit by faking widescreen and you would very-much notice if these had been twice cropped (once for the pan and scan and once for the widescreening) as this lawsuit has lead people to believe.

MacGuffin · January 31, 2005, 04:54:24 PM

From thedigitalbits:

Okay, a LOT of you have been e-mailing us over the weekend all worried about this MGM DVD lawsuit (which we first mentioned last Thursday). It seems that many of you have been frantically checking your widescreen MGM DVDs, and a lot of you seem to be worried that the studio has short-changed you. What it all boils down to, is that many people don't understand how some films (specifically 1.85:1 widescreen films photographed using the 35mm "spherical" process) get transferred for home video (for widescreen and full frame presentation). So we've posted our two cents on the issue to set your minds at ease (see link below). The bottom line is this: You haven't gotten the shaft, folks. In any case, according to Video Business, MGM has agreed to a settlement in the case over the accuracy of the aspect ratio labeling on their DVDs. But rest assured, there isn't anything wrong with the discs themselves.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/mgmsuit/mgmsuit.html

Alethia · January 31, 2005, 05:10:33 PM

Quote from: cinephile
Quote from: cinephile bought all three big woody allen box sets exactly one month ago today so he
SONOFABITCH MOTHERFUCKERS

i own the two bigger ones...whatever, its fine.

SHAFTR · January 31, 2005, 07:12:15 PM

http://www.dvdfile.com/news/viewpoints/editors_desk/2005/mgmdvdlawsuit.html

more information.

killafilm · August 26, 2005, 08:12:58 PM

So I just got a weird e-mail from a friend, and I'm wondering if this is part of the same lawsuit...

The scene in which Alvy and Annie are on her terrace is missing subtitles! On the Pan and Scan side of the disk there are subtitles, but with the headline "thinking," which is not in the original and not neccessary as it is pretty obvious. After much research I found out that this has been a defect in the DVD since 1998, and there are no other versions of the movie out. I hope that if enough people email MGM with complaints they will eventually put out a corrected version. You can email them at http://www.mgm.com/help.do, with the subject defective DVD. Please help!!!!

Or is this something else entirely, that's possibly been covered here before and that I didn't search hard enough/at all.