logo Sign In

MGM's DVD Class Action Settlement

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
Just picked this up from Slashdot:
Quote
"Apparently all of MGM's 'theatrical wide screen' DVD releases for the last few years have been the pan-scanned versions with the top and bottoms cut off. I checked this against my copy of CQ, and it's true. The list (PDF) of butchered movies includes almost every Woody Allen film, Silence of the Lambs, and Ghost World, just to name a few. If you own any of the eligible movies, you have until March 31 to either opt to exchange your copy for $7.10, or a new DVD from MGM, presumably in its proper aspect ratio."
Author
Time
Post link
How come no one ever noticed this before? And you have to pay more than 7 bucks for getting the DVD you were SUPPOSED to have in first place? Sounds like a scam to me.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Ric, i think you misunderstood.

You would exchange your dvd (i guess send it back to MGM) and they would give you either $7.10 per dvd (probably half of what you paid on average, closer to a third if you paid full retail) or you can 'swap' it with a dvd from 'a list of 325 titles'. though it doesnt say that these titles are corrected versions of the movies you are swapping (and are most likely not).

so basically, providing this is true (i have a few dvds on the list and plan to check this out when i get home from work) and they are just cropping the top and bottom of the movies to make them 'widescreen' and the settlement passes, MGM will still be screwing the customers by paying them far less than the dvd is worth (and you no longer have the dvd) or giving them a totally different movie from their 'list of 325 titles'

honestly, unless i can get a fixed version of the movies i have, i plan on opting out of the settlement and/or objecting to the settlement (i want to see the list of 325 titles first)

-Darth Simon
Why Anakin really turned to the dark side:
"Anakin, You're father I am" - Yoda
"No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!" - Anakin

0100111001101001011011100110101001100001

*touchy people disclaimer*
some or all of the above comments are partially exaggerated to convey a point, none of the comments are meant as personal attacks on anyone mentioned or reference in the above post
Author
Time
Post link
This is half true. These films, while shot in the 1.33:1 ratio, were meant to have the tops and bottoms cut off for the widescreen version. Yes, you get less of a picture, but its what the director intends. Still, that doesn't change the fact that MGM was right to lie about it.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!

Author
Time
Post link
I understand that some films are shot in a 1.33:1 ratio with the intention of cropping the top and bottom for the theatrical release (so technically while picture is lost it is picture that the director never intended you to see)

the problem i see is then, when this movie is put into a pan and scan ratio the sides are still getting cut off of the film, just as if an anamorphic movie is done in pan and scan, correct?

so then, if they then cut off more picture onthe top and bottom to make a 'widescreen' version of it (which is the impression i got from this) then you are being royal screwed as far as how much of the movie you are not seeing (pan & scan looses picture, but then widescreen is loosing even more picture)

and this seems to be the case because I remember in Spaceballs when the princess is being threatened with a nose job and they hold up the picture of her old nose you see it. Everytime i watched my dvd (in widescreen) the nose is always cut off and im like, im sure ive seen this movie with the full nose. First that should have been scanned over to so that you see the nose because it defeats the whole point of showing the picture if you cant see the nose.

I may be incorrect about this scene, but if my memory serves me correctly this is the case and since i cant check till i get home either someone else that can check one of these titles for a similar situation (or specifically Spaceballs) or can at least remember if her old nose was ever fully shown, then im going to go under the presumption that this is the case.

-Darth Simon
Why Anakin really turned to the dark side:
"Anakin, You're father I am" - Yoda
"No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!" - Anakin

0100111001101001011011100110101001100001

*touchy people disclaimer*
some or all of the above comments are partially exaggerated to convey a point, none of the comments are meant as personal attacks on anyone mentioned or reference in the above post
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, I remember seeing Vespas hook nose.

Obviously it seems that they are cutting out parts of the actual picture. But I'm not sure they are true pan & scan. For instance, take the movie Road House. While it's possible that some of the top/bottom of the picture was cropped, I don't think the sides were. If you watch the movie on television, there are scenes where the 4:3 television frame moves from one side of the widescreen picture to the other. This is not present on the DVD. I guess I don't know what I'm talking about, but since I haven't noticed the defect, I think I'll just keep the ones I have. Out of my 90 or so DVDs, only 3 are MGM.
40,000 million notches away
Author
Time
Post link
I've got one movie off that list:
Spaceballs

Now I'm going to have to watch both versions to see if it really is cropped in that way. I've watched the WS version a few times, and it doesn't LOOK like its the FS with some edits.
Author
Time
Post link
i only have 3 titles as well (terminator, spaceballs, hang 'em high) and i think all but terminator have both versions, so im gonna watch them and see if anything appears off.

i read a thread in a different forum http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=402532&page=1&pp=25 dont know how accurate it is about what the lawsuit is actually about but it seems that it may just be how the package listed the advantage of widescreen and how that relates to open matte films http://www.rexer.com/cine/oar.htm

but like i said, what ive seen and what i remember from spaceballs seems to suggest that the widescreen versions are pan&scan versions cropped into a widescreen ratio...

chances are i wont bother sending in my dvds, if i do it would probably only be spaceballs and then use the $7 towards the new version...

-Darth Simon
Why Anakin really turned to the dark side:
"Anakin, You're father I am" - Yoda
"No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!" - Anakin

0100111001101001011011100110101001100001

*touchy people disclaimer*
some or all of the above comments are partially exaggerated to convey a point, none of the comments are meant as personal attacks on anyone mentioned or reference in the above post
Author
Time
Post link
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=11503576&sid=137541&tid=97

There's nothing wrong with their widescreen releases. MGM have been using the same graphic on all their DVD's to display a comparison of widescreen and pan-scan. It looks something like:
 _____________
|     |         |     |
|     |         |     |
 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
A lot of the time they have pictures of the movie in them. The problem is that while this may look correct for a lot of their movies, that were shot on anamorphic/wide stock, for those shot on an open frame it is not correct. The movies shot on open-frame often have more picture information in the pan&scan version than the widescreen version, like Terminator 3 (T2 also, actually).

Don't let that fool you though, movies like The Princess Bride that were shot on open-frame stock were always intended for a widescreen release. In fact, in those times directors would literally watch what they'd shot with cardboard coving the top and bottom of the TV screen to make it look wide-screen. In the open-frame release of The Princess Bride ("Pan&Scan") you can see boom mics that were not originally in the movie, because they were cropped out. The original theatrical ratio, short of a director-proffered ratio, is always the best presentation of the film.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Simon
I understand that some films are shot in a 1.33:1 ratio with the intention of cropping the top and bottom for the theatrical release (so technically while picture is lost it is picture that the director never intended you to see)

the problem i see is then, when this movie is put into a pan and scan ratio the sides are still getting cut off of the film, just as if an anamorphic movie is done in pan and scan, correct?

so then, if they then cut off more picture onthe top and bottom to make a 'widescreen' version of it (which is the impression i got from this) then you are being royal screwed as far as how much of the movie you are not seeing (pan & scan looses picture, but then widescreen is loosing even more picture)

and this seems to be the case because I remember in Spaceballs when the princess is being threatened with a nose job and they hold up the picture of her old nose you see it. Everytime i watched my dvd (in widescreen) the nose is always cut off and im like, im sure ive seen this movie with the full nose. First that should have been scanned over to so that you see the nose because it defeats the whole point of showing the picture if you cant see the nose.

I may be incorrect about this scene, but if my memory serves me correctly this is the case and since i cant check till i get home either someone else that can check one of these titles for a similar situation (or specifically Spaceballs) or can at least remember if her old nose was ever fully shown, then im going to go under the presumption that this is the case.

-Darth Simon


That's not really the case though. They are not pan and scanning it, then cutting it down to widescreen. They cut off the top and bottom from the original full-frame negative.

As I understand it, the scene in Spaceballs is either

A) Misframed
B) The cutting off is a joke, as it is meant to be extended off the screen into the next theater (if you were in a theater of course)

Of both reasons I'm sure A is the most likely reason. BTTF was misframed as well, and is one of the popular ones.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!

Author
Time
Post link
From www.thedigitalbits.com

Quote
By the way, we've amended our comments from yesterday on the MGM DVD "settlement" issue. No actual settlement has happened - the weblink we gave you is a settlement proposal posted on a web page created by the law firm involved. We're going to be doing more research over the weekend, but frankly, based on our initial investigation (and talks with people trust within the industry), the whole argument seems completely baseless and without merit. It basically seems like a couple of yahoos, who have no real understanding of the way widescreen films are transferred to DVD for 16x9 and 4x3 presentation, think they've stumbled onto some big conspiracy by MGM to defraud their customers. If there was any truth to their claim, given all of the videophiles and film critics out there who obsessively nitpick their DVDs to death in terms of presentation quality, SOMEONE would have blown the whistle long before this. Anyway, we'll have more on this whole thing next week.


I also found something talking about a Spaceballs: Special Edition (would Mel Brooks make alterations to HIS movie too??) on the same site.

So, if the MGM thing is legit, I might be tempted to trade mine in for the money, and use that for the newer edition.
Author
Time
Post link
I know there's another way of shooting films, Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut was filmed this way:


(EDIT) The "ASCII art" I did didn't look as good after posting it, but it was like a "cross", imagine a square screen but missing 4 little squares at the corners.


Not entirely correct but you can get the idea. For the theatrical version, the widescream frame was chosen, cutting off the top and bottom, but just a little. For the TV, they get the 1:1.33 section, the middle one, and cut off the sides, but just a little bit.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Yes, I doubt MGM could be held liable. For 1. the "miss-representation" of widescreen to pan&scan is on the inside of the packaging and not viewable from the outside, and 2. Just because the movie was shot in open frame, does not mean it'll have the same width as the wide-screen version. For instance with Robocop, Paul Verhoven (or so it seems) wanted the movie released in open-frame which is 1.66:1, however the widescreen version had cropping on all four sides of the frame in many instances.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: bad_karma24
This is half true. These films, while shot in the 1.33:1 ratio, were meant to have the tops and bottoms cut off for the widescreen version. Yes, you get less of a picture, but its what the director intends. Still, that doesn't change the fact that MGM was right to lie about it.


If this is the case, why not do the logical thing, and film the movie with a wide-angled lens? That's what Fox does! When you see the widescreen versions of their movies in the theaters and on DVD, that's the original aspect ratio in which it was filmed.
"May the force be with you!"
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
I know there's another way of shooting films, Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut was filmed this way:


That compares 1.33:1 to 1.85:1, it would look a bit different for 2.53:1. Either way the widescreen version is the intended way.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: bad_karma24
Still, that doesn't change the fact that MGM was right to lie about it.


They were RIGHT to lie? They were RIGHT?!?!! Please explain.
Author
Time
Post link
Here's a scan of their graphic off my Princess Bride booklet:



And here is another graphic showing all comparison possibilities:



I will, however draw attention to their caption:

... 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 for each scene ...
Author
Time
Post link
I agree that they lied. Bad_karma24 seemed to indicate that he thought it right for them to lie. How is it right for MGM to lie?
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
I agree that they lied. Bad_karma24 seemed to indicate that he thought it right for them to lie. How is it right for MGM to lie?
who knows how his mind works. MGM was not right to lie, however they really didn't lie - all they did is use the one single example regardless of how he film was shot. I mean you could complain that for the P&S version to be 50% of the picture then you'd need to start with a ratio of 2.66:1 - however there are cases of movies being shot this wide (wider), so even that is technically true.
Author
Time
Post link
Well i just checked out both versions (widescreen & fullscreen) of the nose job scene on Spaceballs.

First off, i think that the forum discussion i posted above is pretty much dead on...at least in the ones that said that the reason for the suit is due to the widescreen/fullscreen comparison picture on the dvd case.

however, the Spaceballs dvd does not contain the same image that DanielB posted from the back of Princess Bride. Where the two screens overlap in that the image on the Spaceballs dvd is actually two seperate images side by side.

no i think im going to have to politely disagree with DanielB on the fact that there is nothing wrong with their widescreen releases. I beleive bad_karma24 is correct when he said that spaceballs is misframed (which in my opinion is something wrong with their widescreen version, maybe not all the movies but at least this one).

in the widescreen version of the nose is cut off so you basically cannot see the nose, you see it enough to know that it is big and ugly, but it goes out of frame. at the same scene on the fullscreen version, only the very tip of her nose is cut off by the edge of the screen.

also, the fullscreen version contains more picture on the top and bottom of the frame but is slightly cropped on the sides of this frame. this is very apparent by the princess' relative location to the boarder of the screen, the bottom straps holding her to the table, and the view screen with her father on it. now please, do not start saying this is because of open matt filming. while the movie may have been filmed this way, the boarder is not a consistant thickness (boarder being the cropping on the sides & extra picture on the top/bottom in the full screen), and if it was just open matte then there would be no need to still crop the sides of the picture...besides, the sides of the picture are more severely cropped during certain scenes on the widescreen version than on the fullscreen version.

so basically, will i send my dvds back...no, probably not because i doubt they'll give me the new version of Spaceballs for my old one, and for the $7 minus my shipping costs i dont feel its worth it. I will probably not check out the other 2 movies i have that are on the list either (terminator & hang 'em high) because terminator only has the widescreen version so i have nothing to compare it to, and hang 'em high i first saw on regular cable so it was in fullscreen and the dvd presentation did not detract from my viewing pleasure as i noticed nothing amiss (unlike the nose job in Spaceballs) I will however probably buy a copy of the new Spaceballs release (probably see if DAYV knows if this one issue is corrected first) in hopes to get a properly framed movie

-Darth Simon

p.s. i posted this above but for a really simple yet informative guide on different aspect ratios and fullscreen/widescreen methods check out htis link http://www.rexer.com/cine/oar.htm
Why Anakin really turned to the dark side:
"Anakin, You're father I am" - Yoda
"No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!" - Anakin

0100111001101001011011100110101001100001

*touchy people disclaimer*
some or all of the above comments are partially exaggerated to convey a point, none of the comments are meant as personal attacks on anyone mentioned or reference in the above post
Author
Time
Post link
Number 1 there has been no settlement, even if you wanted to you couldn't send them your disc and expect them to conform to the "proposed settlement".

Number 2, the scan I showed is what MGM uses on ALL their titles (except those few and far between without one at all). Sometimes there is actually a movie still inside their comparison, but it doesn't matter what matters is how the movie is actually framed.

Number 3, the plaintiffs (as stupid as they are) are not claiming/contesting miss-framing, they claim that the graphic displayed does not accurately depict the pan&scan comparison (which in many cases is true, however MGM certainly can't be sued over it). For instance, with the Princess Bride the movie was literally cropped straight to widescreen. As far as I know there was no vertical panning in use (since they watched what they filmed with cardboard covering the top and bottom of their TV, as far as they were concerned what was shot underneath the cardboard - or outside of the 1.85:1 area - didn't exist). So the full-screen version did not under-go a pan&scan conversion at all (since there was no panning required to keep all the action in frame, all they had to do was remove the crop boarders).

If you're with me so far, that's good. Now comes the home VHS release in 1.33:1. If the movie had instead been released widescreen, the picture would still have been the same size on the screen, the only difference would be the fact that you're missing picture on the top and bottom - you could achieve the same effect by covering your TV with cardboard on the top and bottom. This is picture that is supposed to be missing. It is not supposed to be in the movie. So yes, the theatrical version is cropped as far as the Film Frame is concerned, but no it isn't cropped as far as the movie is concerned - because the area inside the 1.85:1 theatrical run IS the movie!!

And Number 4. The "$7.10 buyback/free exchange" is the plaintiff’s idea, NOT MGM's! As far as MGM is concerned they will not buy back any of the titles, nor will they exchange them for free (except, obviously, where they are required to by law - which they do already).

It's a long way of saying that Spaceballs isn't miss-framed, and if it is then you'll have to wait for another class action to come along, because this one has nothing to do with it.
Author
Time
Post link
1) Never said the settlement was final, but you still need to submit a claim form by March 31st 2005 about a month and a half before they decide if the settlement is fair May 16th 2005. So while your not sending your dvds back at this point (at least thats how i read it) you still need to submit a form by this time in order to be eligable to take 'advantage' (not sure if it is really an advantage) of the "proposed settlement" when (if) it becomes final

2) Maybe I should have been more clear on how I actually went and looked at the back of my Spaceballs DVD case and the image was different than the one you posted. But since I was only looking at the actual dvd and not going by (apparently wrong) information that says they use that image on ALL their titles. If i had a scanner at home i would scan the back cover to show you the image on the back of my dvd. Either way, the only reason i brought that up, which maybe i should have made clear, is because had you read the thread that i posted it it talks about how they seemed to have just put all the titles that are presented in the 1.85:1 ratio (i think that was the ratio in question) into the list of 'problem' dvds.

3) I could give a rats ass what the plaintiffs are or are not claiming. and how smart or stupid they are as well, i dont know them so im not going to make judgements on their intelligences (especially if since anything it seems to be a lack of information on their part and not intelligence...)

As far as im concerened, I checked out 1 of the 3 dvds I had on the list. I found that the 'problem' for which they are being sued is either non existant or doesnt affect me. I did however find that the framing of the widescreen movie appears to be incorrect. Since no proper framing of a widescreen movie (open matte or whatever) should cause information from the sides to be cut.

4) please show sources for the $7.10 buyback/free exchange being the plaintiff's idea and not MGM's. As far as i understand the concept of a legal settlement

Quote
Main Entry: set·tle·ment
Function: noun
1 : the act or process of settling
2 a : an agreement reducing or resolving differences; especially : an agreement between litigants that concludes the litigation <the states finally agreed upon a settlement and a consent decree —W. J. Brennan, Junior> <entered into a property settlement prior to the divorce> b : a formal and permanent grant or conveyance c : the sum, estate, or income granted or paid under a settlement <if the monetary limits of a defendant's insurance policy can be discovered in order to obtain reasonable settlements —J. H. Friedenthal et al.>
3 : CLOSING <settlement costs>
4 : the transfer of funds between a payor bank and a collecting bank in order to complete transactions for customers


means that both sides agree to hit. so the only thing keeping this from being an actual settlement and not a proposed settlement is that a judge has not objectively ruled as to the fairness (to both sides) of this settlement.

now thats just how i interpret/understand the above (pretty straight forward) definition. im no legal expert so i could be wrong. so if anyone that is a legal expert (expert defined as lawyer, judge, law professor) wants to correct me if im wrong then they may go ahead and do so.

It's a long way of saying, yes, i beleive Spaceballs is miss-frame and I never said that this class action covers this issue...but if i can use this class action to replace/get money to replace my dvd then why not. And since i already stated that I will probably keep this version and buy the new version providing there is no framing errors (and/or there is enough new material on the disc to make it worthwhile) then it really doesnt matter if/how it applies to the current class action. Plus if i really cared (or more importantly wanted to spend insanely large amounts of time and money i dont have) i could start my own class action for just the Spaceballs dvd miss-frame.

My whole reason for the post was to try and inform people that I believe there is really nothing wrong with their dvds so not to waste your time/money/effort to send them back for exchange/refund unless you just want to take advantage of it to thin out your dvds a little, but thats a personal choice.

also, please stop trying to inform me about the opening matting used in some films, as if you had read the very simple yet informative link i had posted in two of my previous posts, then it would be obvious i am aware of said information http://www.rexer.com/cine/oar.htm

-Darth Simon
Why Anakin really turned to the dark side:
"Anakin, You're father I am" - Yoda
"No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!" - Anakin

0100111001101001011011100110101001100001

*touchy people disclaimer*
some or all of the above comments are partially exaggerated to convey a point, none of the comments are meant as personal attacks on anyone mentioned or reference in the above post
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: DanielB
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
I know there's another way of shooting films, Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut was filmed this way:


That compares 1.33:1 to 1.85:1, it would look a bit different for 2.53:1. Either way the widescreen version is the intended way.


Not really. Kubrick always intended for the widescreen version to be shown at movie theaters, and for the 1.33 version to be shown on TVs. You will not find a widescreen version of Eyes Wide Shut on DVD.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
Quote
Originally posted by: bad_karma24
Still, that doesn't change the fact that MGM was right to lie about it.


They were RIGHT to lie? They were RIGHT?!?!! Please explain.


Sorry, got my phrasing a bit mixed up. I meant to say that they were wrong to lie... but I'm obviously not an English major...

Quote
That compares 1.33:1 to 1.85:1, it would look a bit different for 2.53:1. Either way the widescreen version is the intended way.


No, it's not. It's whatever the director intends.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!

Author
Time
Post link
except that whatever the directer intends, is not always the best thing. That's why OT.com exists.