MGM's DVD Class Action Settlement

MrFreak writes "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." Update: 01/28 19:44 GMT by M : The above is not correct. A comment does a reasonable job of explaining; see the Aspect Ratio FAQ for background. The movies themselves have not been cut twice; they've been cut once, because they were originally formatted for television.

Comments

Wow.

[ONU CS Geek]

It's down already.

Actually, while it was in the "Members only" phase, it seemed to go down, but the google cache of this stuff has the info as well as the cached files (and the HTML files for those who don't like to read PDF files).

Maybe they pulled it before it got too much attention? The big media companies would never do that. Never.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, let me get this straight. MGM had a suit filed against them for creating DVD's that some people thought should be anamorphic (though I have yet to see anywhere on any of my packaging of my copies anything that says, or implies, an anamorphic transfer), but were instead matted (yet still in theatrical widescreen.. no info lost). These peoples reasoning is that because the full frame version is an open matte version of the widescreen that they were ripped off on the widescreen version? Damn, some people really need to get a life.

Re:Wow.

[kyouteki]

No, these "theatrical widescreen" versions are the full screen versions (that have had the left and right chopped off when changing the aspect ratio from 16:9 to 4:3) with the tops and bottoms cut off. So instead of getting more picture like normal, you're losing more picture than you would with the 4:3 version of the film.

Re:Wow.

[squiggleslash]

Almost correct.

These theatrical widescreen versions are the full screen versions with the tops and bottoms cut off. However, the full screen versions are not Pan and Scan, as you imply ("that have had the left and right chopped off"), they're the original 4:3 what-came-out-of-the-not-widescreen-camera footage.

Many films are shot in 4:3 with an view to letterboxing them. 4:3 equipment is cheap.

So actually MGM hasn't done much wrong here. The nearest thing you could argue is that the descriptions MGM had of them implied there was more cutting with the full screen DVDs. That's not quite accurate, the full screen copies were not cut when they should have been.

NOTE TO EVERYONE: This has NOTHING to do with pan and scan. The Slashdot summary is wrong. If you prefer your DVDs to look the same as the cinema releases, you should keep your existing widescreen DVDs. If you're interested in raw footage, boom mikes showing, etc, then MGM's full screen DVDs will give you that.

Re:Wow.

[jiml777]

This is the dumbest thing I have ever read. The aspect ratio is determined by the 35mm film, not by the "equipment". The widescreen version will NOT have boom mics, etc. in the shot. I think you've watched too many documentaries and seen the Video equipment that captures what the film camera shoots.

Re:Wow.

[Deeze]

He didn't say the widescreen version will have mics, he said the fullscreen version will since it's open matte.

Re:Wow.

[squiggleslash]

Nobody said the widescreen version would have boom mics. The full screen version will if (a) the original print was 4:3, (b) the film was shot at 4:3 but with the intent to show it letter boxed, (c) the director didn't really care much about boom mics appearing in the area he/she intended to letterbox and (d) the TV/fullscreen version is a straight copy of the original 4:3 print, not a pan and scan version of the letterboxed film.

And yes, the equipment, not the film, usually determines whether the film will be 4:3 or some widescreen format. Widescreen on 35mm film is usually achieved either through anamorphic lenses or by shooting, as described, straight 4:3 and then blacking out the top and bottom.

Re:Wow.

[Rick the Red]

These peoples reasoning is that because the full frame version is an open matte version of the widescreen that they were ripped off on the widescreen version?

Yes. Exactly. When I buy a widescreen version I do it because I want to see the entire movie, not some pan-and-scan hack job. But in MGM's case, the so-called "widescreen" DVDs actually give us LESS of the original film, while the "fullscreen" version is the one that shows the entire film. I bought the widescreen version because MGM misled me into thinking it was the full version when in fact it is the butchered version. So yes, I feel ripped off.

Damn, some people really need to get a life.

Yes, you do. You hang out on Slashdot way too much for your own good.

Re:Wow.

[Deeze]

Yep, I really MUST watch the full screen version so that I won't miss anything the *director intended* to be in it.. like mics and other parts of the set that are hidden by that pesky matte. Jeeze. Somebody needs to have a drink and cool off. Its friday night, get drunk and watch a movie. I'll take a "butchered widescreen" thank you very much, as unwanted set pieces in the frame are too distracting for me. Hmmm, A Fish Called Wanda sounds good to me, and why, yes, it is right here :). Must unwind from the intensity that is Battlestar Galactica.

R1 only?

[philbowman]

Does this only apply to R1 disks, or are other regions similarly faulty? Do we (e.g. in the UK) have any recourse if so? Also, will the replacement DVDs they're offering still be the dodgy ones?

Re:R1 only?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to http://mgmdvdsettlement.com/notice.php3, it's for US customers only.

Re:R1 only?

[sifi]

From the notice of class action settlement:

ALL CONSUMERS IN THE UNITED STATES WHO OWM MGM WIDESCREEN DVDS IDENTIFIED IN THIS NOTICE

So I guess that means it is only important where you live, not what the region encoding is. If you are still unsure you can call the Claims Administrator at the folling toll-free number 1-800-285-2168

Failing that I'd call watchdog :-) (UK's consumer 'justice' programme)

Re:R1 only?

[Anonymous Coward]

There would probably need to be a similar suit in the UK for her citizens to be eligible for said relief.

You could always try filing a claim anyway.

Re:R1 only?

[philbowman]

I meant are only the R1 disks cropped wrong, or are all regions' disks wrong?

Re:R1 only?

[Zirtix]

We don't get to file class actions; we have to get some regulator to step in, I think. Anyway it looks like no-one has tested reg 2 DVDs for this problem.

Re:R1 only?

[carwyn]

Well I've just skimmed though Spaceballs and there are certainly frames that seem a little cramped (e.g. anything with a radar screen).

I don't think we can get in on the US suit but I certainly think it's pushing trade descriptions.

Actaully if you try playing a DVD in a window on a computer you can tell quite easily actually. Anything pan scanned with still display in a 4:3 window.

Re:R1 only?

[Poro]

As some have already pointed out, this is only for consumers in the United States. What I really would like to know (well, I would also like to know if other regions have the same fault) is that is it impossible for non-US people like me to get a replaced disc. I am not living in US but I have some US R1 discs that are in the list of faulty discs. Well, at least one, This is Spinal Tap! :)

Re:R1 only?

[rikkards]

What about us Canadians? I have two movies on the list?

Re:R1 only?

[iainl]

I've got the Rob Reiner-supervised Criterion laserdisc of This Is Spinal Tap. My brother has the MGM DVD release. Both have pretty much the same framing, as far as I can tell. The lawsuit is because the booklets explaining widescreen are wrong.

Re:R1 only?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are NOT "cropped wrong". Fact is the full frame version is open matte vs pan & scan, thus people are whining for whatever reason (oh yeah, that the packaging implies it's pan & scan instead of open matte) that is beyond me.

Re:R1 only?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh no, that's not the problem.

The problem is that DVDs packaged as Widescreen versions (the full frame as it was in the theater) is actually the "full screen" (already cropped or pan&scan'd) version cropped on the top and bottom AGAIN to give the impression of the original frame size. So you're actually seeing less movie than even the "full screen"/"pan&scan" version.

Re:R1 only?

[philbowman]

That sounds "Cropped Wrong" to me.

Re:R1 only?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be seeing "less movie", but you are seeing what the director intended.

Look, it's perfectly simple: while a lot of movies are filmed using anamorphic lenses, and other widescreen equipment, a huge quantity are not. They're filmed using standard 4:3 equipment. This is especially true of movies filmed on a budget.

The result is that once the editing is done, there are two versions of the film: there's the original, what-the-camera-saw, 4:3 version. And then there's a letter boxed version of that. That latter version goes to the cinema.

The former version, the original, is then used to make the TV version. When DVDs come out, it's used to make the "full screen" version, the original theatrical release being the "wide screen" version.

The complaint against MGM is that MGM misrepresented the full screen version as being pan and scan (by making the usual disclaimer about how the film has been "formatted to fit on your screen".) MGM hadn't formatted it. It was the original, or most of it was.

It's a dumb complaint, but it's enough to get a lawsuit together, and there are people - like the /. submitter - who thinks that it's all some scam and MGM has taken some pan and scan version and put black bars on it who get all excited. You appear to be one of those people.

The widescreen releases are, usually, identical in formatting to the theatrical releases. That's true of these DVDs. It's just the fullscreen versions contain more material, because of a quirk in how the films were shot.

Re:R1 only?

[Napoleon Blownapart]

I have a couple of DVDs on this list that I bought in the United States but I live in the UK.

Can I get them replaced? Any advice?

Re:R1 only?

[lmsig]

Nope. Canadians are not US citizens either. I know. shocking!

The point it, you need to sue them in your own country, there is no world court for this type of thing.

Re:R1 only?

[plague3106]

You may be seeing "less movie", but you are seeing what the director intended.

If the director didn't intend for me to see something, it wouldn't have ended up on film.

I do purposely only buy the widescreen versions, because I got tired of seeing a character talking to someone offscreen, or missing some visual clue that only appears in the corner of the widescreen version. Also...some of the pan and scans are so badly done they detract from the movie.

I thought i did own some movies that that were panning, and thought that it was wierd. I guess this would explain it.

Re:R1 only?

[plague3106]

Um, if only the pamplets are wrong, why are they letting you EXCHANGE the dvds you already have for new ones? If it was just the pamplet, sending out a new pamplet would suffice.

Re:R1 only?

[Skater]

I just looked at my copy of Spaceballs - some of the scenes are identical between the two sides of the disc, while others are truly widescreen. I'm going by what you can see on the sides of the screen.

For example, the "Planet Druidia" title screen is the same on both sides of the disc. But the wedding scenes immediately following it are different.

For Princess Bride, the first chapter ("As you wish") appears to be the same. I didn't look beyond that, though.

Re:R1 only?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I noticed this when I first bought the disc... Incidentally, this is the only MGM disc I own (not a huge DVD collector)--I didn't even know this was an issue..

Re:R1 only?

[iainl]

I'd imagine that the list of new titles will consist of (a) the new MGM releases that don't actually come with any kind of booklet at all (grr...) and/or (b) films shot for 2.39:1, where the statement that you see more image in the widescreen release is true.

In any case, the discs are indeed correctly framed in every instance I've looked.

Re:R1 only?

[ToLu the Happy Furby]

MOD PARENT UP

Re:R1 only?

[squiggleslash]

If the director didn't intend for me to see something, it wouldn't have ended up on film.

Of course it would. What kind of comment is that?

If the film is shot on 4:3 film, then the top and bottom of the film is not intended for your viewing, but it certainly ended up on film.

And try googling "out-takes".

I thought i did own some movies that that were panning, and thought that it was wierd. I guess this would explain it.

No, it doesn't. No panning and scanning is going on. As I said, despite the dumb Slashdot write up, this is about films filmed on 4:3 being letterboxed. MGM is emphatically not selling pan and scanned films letterboxed.

Re:R1 only?

[Facekhan]

Actually this is just another group of lawyers taking a case where a company literally defrauded millions of people, albeit of a small sum per person, and turning it into a class action which means that they get to represent us without our consent and take a huge fee for their service and all we get is $7 in exchange for our dvd which cost at least $10 and many as much as $20.

Class actions of this size never benefit anyone but the lawyers.

I never got my CD class action check. Not that I really care.

Re:R1 only?

[sasami]

If the director didn't intend for me to see something, it wouldn't have ended up on film.

Completely incorrect. What justification do you think you have for this?

A director will typically shoot 3 to 10 times more footage than actually ends up in the final product. And I'm not talking about repeated takes of the same scene, but of actual unique footage that is picked over, arranged, and assembled -- a.k.a. edited -- to become a movie.

--
Dum de dum.

Re:R1 only?

[SNES Chalmers]

I actually got abot a $13 check from the CD class action suit. I remember being surprised, because I was only expecting about $5.50 or so, if anything. The CD class action suit was a little different because it was based on overcharging, not the quality and/or content of the discs.

Re:R1 only?

[limekiller4]

plague3106 writes:
"If the director didn't intend for me to see something, it wouldn't have ended up on film."

This is quite possibly one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read on Slashdot.

Does the poster have any knowledge whatsoever of the shooting process?

I have a dream. It's not a big dream, it's a small dream. The dream is that one day I wake up and Slashdot comments are made by people who actually have ...you know, just a shred of a clue. A crumb, a mote, someting goddamn it.

There is only one thing worse than someone who, when asked a question, cannot admit they don't know. That's a person who doesn't have a goddamn clue and volunteers an answer.

Re:R1 only?

[KanSer]

Well, e-mail me in 5 days(kanser@@@gmail...com) and I'll tell you whether or not it worked. I just called the 1-800 number(from canada), and it only tooke 2 minutes to say "spaceballs" and my addresse. If I get a form then Canadians are eligible. If I don't then I guess tough noogies for me, I'll have to keep watching this version. (I didn't even notice it was fucked, no one seems stretched or cropped, but I wasn't looking for it.)

Re:R1 only?

[Fortran IV]

This is probably redundant, but the settlement offers "a new MGM DVD from a list of 325 titles," not, "an honestly-packaged copy of the purchased DVD." The 325 replacement titles aren't listed anywhere I've found. There's no guarantee that you can get a replacement copy of The Princess Bride or The Last Waltz.

In fact, the list of affected DVDs has 550 titles on it, not 325. MGM is probably taking this opportunity to clear their warehouses of titles that even Amazon can't move. And if you can get the exact title you originally bought, I don't see any reason they couldn't give you exactly the same version you already have, as long as the packaging is no longer "deceptive".

Re:R1 only?

[Deeze]

" I've got the Rob Reiner-supervised Criterion laserdisc of This Is Spinal Tap. " Oh DUDE! I am insanely jealous! Sweet :). Had a chance to get a laser disk player with a stack of disks about 2 ft high a couple years ago for $150. I've felt like an idiot ever since I didn't go for it :/.

Re:R1 only?

[Blondie-Wan]

Except that in the case of most movies designed to be seen with a 1.85:1 or narrower aspect ratio, the full-frame versions aren't actually cropped; they instead show the full image of the original camera negative, and more picture than was seen in theaters. Many movies are shot in a way that records more picture information than is actually desired at the top and/or bottom of the frame, and it's then matted off when the film is exhibited in theaters. In such cases, the "full-frame" video may show more of the picture than has ever been seen in any widescreen version (theatrically or on video), but that's not necessarily desirable (probably the opposite).

Myopia

[psi42]

Heh... are we all so blind?


I don't remember noticing this, or hearing about it.

Re:Myopia

[the_sidewinder]

Well I guess it's a good thing someone was paying attention

Re:Myopia

[Lifereaper0]

It's tough to tell unless you have a good copy to compare against. And why would you hear about it? Most of the news companies are owned by giant companies that may have had dealings with MGN before. You don't report this kind of thing.

Re:Myopia

[Gilmoure]

I guess I'll have to switch out my copies of The Handmaid's Tale and Black Mama, White Mama. Will be cool to see what I've been missing.

I'm aghast!

[bigtallmofo]

I noticed this recently when I downloaded the iso .torrent of Silence of the Lambs and burned it to a DVD with DVDShrink. I'm outraged that they would rip me off like this!

I'm going to contact them immediately and ask for them to make restitution.

Re:I'm aghast!

[Laurentiu]

They will probably apologise and offer you a tracker to the new version, plus a brand new suit. Law suit, that is.

Re:I'm aghast!

[tomhudson]

Yep. Funny. But look at the dollar figures:

Media Giant rips you off:.. $7.10 per copy
You rip off Media Giant:.$150,000 per copy

... and ...

Media Giant does this in an organized fashion: no criminal sanctions
You do this in an organized fashion:.........: criminal record, PMITA jail time

Re:I'm aghast!

[Maestro4k]

While I know you were trying to be funny, there's a serious point here as well. Ignoring the quality of the movies (which is subjective, one man's trash is another man's treasure) how can the studios complain about piracy when they willfully defraud customers like this?

I wonder how MGM will spin this to make it look like the losses are due to piracy though. They seem to manage to do that for everything, no matter what the loss's true causes were.

Re:I'm aghast!

[Coryoth]

It's okay though because the lawyers are suing MGM for a little over a million dollars to cover legal fees. I'm glad that the big money is going where it's supposed to. I mean, the important thing here is that the lawyers get paid right? My understanding was that that was the point of US society these days: to pay Lawyers.

Jedidiah.

Re:I'm aghast!

[log0n]

You know, that's a pretty good point.

Re:I'm aghast!

[That's Unpossible!]

how can the studios complain about piracy when they willfully defraud customers like this?

Unless I'm mistaken, the only studio (singular) that has defrauded its customers is MGM.

Re:I'm aghast!

[mackman]

5 more karma... priceless.

Re:I'm aghast!

[ashkar]

According to this:

If you want to remain in the Class, but object to the terms of the Settlement, you must file and serve your objection with the Court and counsel on or before April 11, 2005.

you should file a complaint concerning the unfairness of this decision.

Re:I'm aghast!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry but I am wondering why lawyers are so much worse than say corrupt CEO's or corrupt politicians (as if there were any other kind).

Bush, Dick, and their Republican cronies are funneling tax payer funds to their buddies' companies, and yet its the lawyers that are ruining America? I don't get it. At least the lawyers are putting down corporate misdeeds while they get rich. What have the politicians done except drag us into poorly managed wars?

Re:I'm aghast!

[cpt kangarooski]

a little over a million dollars

$2.7 million, IIRC.

I mean, the important thing here is that the lawyers get paid right? My understanding was that that was the point of US society these days: to pay Lawyers.

Yes, that is absolutely correct. So long as the lawyers get paid, everyone's happy. ;)

Re:I'm aghast!

[Anonymous Coward]

We get to paint these morons with the same brush that they used.

A few guys rip off movies and distribute them, and we have to listen to the unending whining, suffer through their so evil it's scary bills in congress, and look at their nausea inducing brown spots in the movie theater.

If they get to do that, we get to treat the entire industry as suspect because they simply haven't been caught yet.

Stargate

[antivoid]

Finally. I dont know why they butchered all the movies. Does that mean I can send my stargate collection back for a replacement?

:)

Interesting...

[skatrek]

I've been trying to convince my dad all these years that the widescreen versions DO contain more of a scene than the fullscreen versions - "they just cut the sides off for fullscreen! it just *looks* like it's less in widescreen!" but apparently he was right (at least in a few cases ;)

Re:Interesting...

[GigsVT]

Heh yeah. The thing is that when they remove the matte for this type of thing, you sometimes get shots where you can see the mike boom and other things the director and editor never intended.

Re:Interesting...

[tgibbs]

In fact, for quite a few movies the "fullscreen" version does contain more of the image than the widescreen version. Even in this case, however, there is an argument for the widescreen version, because the director composes a scene with widescreen in mind.

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

virtually every movie shot flat (1.85:1 aspect ratio) will have more image on top/bottom in the full frame version. Same for scope movies (2.39:1 ratio) shot in super 35 where the full frame crops the sides slightly but has more image on top/bottom.

Re:Interesting...

[The-Bus]

The difference here is how the "full screen" (or properly, 4:3 ratio'd) film is put into DVD.

Some, mostly old Kung Fu flicks, are simply "squeezed". The image is all there but everyone is especially tall and skinny. This is certainly a rarity.

Many are converted to "pan and scan" - which means that a 4:3 area is cropped out of the much wider film. A Few Good Men (VHS copies at least) have this - it often gives you a sickening feeling because the "panning" is so unnatural.

A very small amount are "open matte" - take, for example, Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut. The film is not "matted" to look widescreen in the DVD release, it is simply left as the camera got it. In movies such as the first two installments of the Harry Potter series, the director Christopher Columbus framed the movie to work well in widescreen as well as open matte. The result is a movie that (in theory) looks as good in widescreen as it does in full screen.

Then there's the cases where the director or cinematographer are not involved and the person doing the mastering and transfer to DVD can only guess as to which part of the image is how the film should've been framed. An easy example would be Spoorloos (The Vanishing) which had different ratios in releases by Criterion and Fox Lorber (I would put my money on Criterion knowing the right ratio).

Hence, many times, you don't get more or less image with a specific kind of frame. What film enthusiasts instill is the concept of viewing the film in OAR, the Original Aspect Ratio. That is, under the director's original intentions, whatever those were (Kubrick shot EWS for open matte viewing at home).

Re:Interesting...

[operagost]

If what you're saying is true, then those bloopers were probably visible in the theatrical release. Most theatrical releases are in 16:9 now, or close to it. As for classic films, they used a lot of different ratios so you could be right about those. Incidentally, 4:3 was a common aspect ratio in the 1930s-1940s, which is why televisions were based on it.

Re:Interesting...

[operagost]

Crap - and I just said this only happens with classic films. Yet there's my beloved "Princess Bride" from the 1980s with a wonderfully anachronistic boom mic in the frame. Well, I say it's a classic!

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, most theatrical releases today are 1.85:1, and a few are 2.35:1... Both of which are wider than 16:9.

I truely doubt that boom mics or whatever would show up if they weren't masked the way they are... That's what a viewfinder is for.

Re:Interesting...

[Gilmoure]

Fox Lorber is the butcher of movies. The original DVD releases of The Three Musketeers and The Four Muskateers were pan-and-scan versions that were then cropped top and bottom as well. No had feet or hats/top of heads. Pitiful.

Re:Interesting...

[GigsVT]

It happens, a lot

While the theatrical release may be filmed at a wider aspect ratio, there is often indeed more area at the top and bottom that can be unmasked for the conversion to more square ratios.

The viewfinder would likely be masked to the final aspect ratio too, but I'm no filmmaker.

Re:Interesting...

[arkoenig]

What about Stanley Kubrick, who shot all his movies in 4:3 and then re-cropped them for theatrical release?

Re:Interesting...

[tgibbs]

What about Stanley Kubrick, who shot all his movies in 4:3 and then re-cropped them for theatrical release?

Here, the question is not so much what the shooting format was, but rather what format the director and cinematographer had in mind when they composed the scene. Knowing that the image would be cropped for widescreen, perhaps Kubrick staged the scenes to favor that format. Or perhaps he thought that his films would have their greatest longevity on TV and favored the 4:3 format (of course, now an increasing number of TVs are 16:9). Or maybe he compromised, trying to come up with something that would work in both formats.

I remember one scene in 2001, with a static shot (as I first saw it in Cinerama) of the two astronauts speaking to each other and HAL's camera eye in the middle, that was horribly mangled in the TV release, with the view panning back and forth.

Re:Interesting...

[STrinity]

I remember one scene in 2001, with a static shot (as I first saw it in Cinerama) of the two astronauts speaking to each other and HAL's camera eye in the middle, that was horribly mangled in the TV release, with the view panning back and forth.

Kubrick shot 2001 in Cinemascope at the insistence of the studio, which believed the film would look best in 2.35:1; everything else he did in anamorphic widescreen, with shots composed with 4:3 screens in mind.

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a good cynical article called The Widescreen Scam that pertains to this controversy.

The article is correct in calling matted 4:3 films a cheat, but incorrect in saying there are no true widescreen film formats. Hitchcock used VistaVision (a 16:9 format using standard movie film running sideways instead of up through the camera) which equalled the quality and sharpness of slide film in still cameras. Then there was Technirama and Super Technirama which used a squeezing anamorphic lens on a VistaVision camera. ILM used VistaVision for motion controlled effects shots in STAR WARS because the large, sharp images survived optical printing better than regular 35mm footage.

It's pretty interesting to note IMAX, the biggest movie format, has a nearly 4:3 aspect ratio. "Widescreen" grandeur results more from wide angle optics than the projection screen's width. I for one am tired of every big movie being done in Panavision's 7:3, since 4:3 is friendlier to hats, cleavage, and the sensation of ground speed.

Re:Interesting...

[MojoStan]

Kubrick shot 2001 in Cinemascope at the insistence of the studio, which believed the film would look best in 2.35:1; everything else he did in anamorphic widescreen, with shots composed with 4:3 screens in mind.

Everything else except Spartacus, which was shot in Super Technirama (also 2.35:1). However, like 2001, this probably wasn't his choice. From the "trivia" section of Spartacus's IMDb entry:

• Stanley Kubrick was brought in as director after Kirk Douglas had a major falling out with the original director, Anthony Mann.
• Stanley Kubrick was not given control of the script, which he felt was full of stupid moralizing. Since then, Kubrick has kept full control over all aspects of his films.
• Cinematographer Russell Metty walked off the set of Spartacus complaining that Stanley Kubrick was not letting him do his job. When he returned to the set, Kubrick told him to shut up and butt out and subsequently, Kubrick did the majority of the cinematography work on Spartacus. Metty complained about this up until the release of the film and even, at one point, asked to have his name removed from the credits of the film. Metty was awarded the Academy Award for cinematography for Spartacus.

Re:Interesting...

[MojoStan]

Knowing that the image would be cropped for widescreen, perhaps Kubrick staged the scenes to favor that format. Or perhaps he thought that his films would have their greatest longevity on TV and favored the 4:3 format (of course, now an increasing number of TVs are 16:9).

I found a Kubrick FAQ from a site maintained by the alt.movies.kubrick newsgroup that attempts to explain the "full frame" question. You're pretty close to what the FAQ thinks.

Some facts from the FAQs:

• Kubrick started as a photographer and had a "photographer's eye" according to this longtime personal assistant Leon Vitali. This might explain a preference for 4:3 aspect ratios.
• Kubrick never publicly voiced his aspect ratio preferences for the "home video" releases of his films. Therefore, the decision to release them in "full frame" is very controversial.

What about the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Have the UK had the same problem ? If so where do we stand or is the settlement only for the USA.

Re:What about the UK

[blacksway]

The Notice on the web site states:

"Settlement Class" means all consumers in the United States who acquired or purchased for their own use and not for resale widescreen DVDs manufactured by or on behalf of MGM which were created for films shot in the aspect ratio of 1.85 to 1 or 1.66 to 1 from December 1998 to September 8, 2003.

So not the UK.

Also, from what I read it the March 31st deadline is for the opt out of the class action suit - and not the exchange of the DVD.

Also, the action hasn't gone to court yet (by the looks of it) so hasn't even been won! The hearing is scheduled for May 16, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. at Department CCW-322 of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Re:What about the UK

[Todesmetall]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this notice seems to say that only "consumers in the United States" can take part in this settlement.

I still don't know if RC2 discs have the same problems as the RC1 ones. I doubt that MGM uses completely different mastering processes for each region.

Re:What about the UK

[Sparr0]

mail your disc to a USican.

All of them?

[Warmth Is Life]

I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me that the list mainly consists of films that were not very high in priority for MGM. The list of butchered DVDs is definitely not a complete list of all releases from the past few years.

Re:All of them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it would help to look at the list. With movies like Hannibal, Spaceballs, Robocop, Terminatior, etc...i'm not entirely convinced that they are not high priority.

Re:All of them?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that the list mainly consists of films that were not very high in priority for MGM.

What you need to remember is that these companies make about as much on the bottom 80% of releases as they do the top 20%. Skimping on the cost to release those 80% means they might rake in even more, while providing an inferior product. This is definitely a calculated move -- they knew what they were doing.

[This incarnation of the 80/20 rule also explains why you're seeing DVD boxed sets of pretty much every crappy TV series ever made.]

Re:All of them?

[kannibal_klown]

"The Aviator" is on there. Wasn't that a really recent movie that won some awards (or was at least nominated)?

But yeh, I own a bunch of them, but they definately aren't my "first string" movies. Dirty Work, Space Balls, RoboCop, and a few others.

But considering this list also has "Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey" and a few other snoozers, I'd have to say that maybe the world's a better place thanks to about 75% of this list being butchered.

Re:All of them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is "The Aviator" even available on DVD yet?

Re:All of them?

[kannibal_klown]

Is "The Aviator" even available on DVD yet?

My mistake. They must mean the 1885 version.

Re:All of them?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you trying to say about "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure"?!

Re:All of them?

[iainl]

It isn't a complete list of MGM DVDs, no.

It _is_ however a complete list of MGM DVDs released before September 2003 (when they stopped including the booklets with the 'misleading' information) that were shot Flat with a theatrical aspect ratio of 1.66:1 or 1.85:1.

The lawsuit is because the 1.33:1 releases of these films are not strictly Pan And Scan, but Open Matte. It's a pretty fucking petty lawsuit if you ask me, and there's no way in hell I'd give up my correctly framed release of The Terminator for a pitiful $7.

Re:All of them?

[HTH NE1]

Well I may use it to get money back for my copy of "WarGames" which stops playing at the layer change on the word "Jesus" in his lament about not knowing how to swim. Or the copy of "The Princess Bride" which I replaced with the special edition.

I'd still like to know how "The Secret of NIMH" ended up on the list. I mistakenly bought a full-screen version of that and couldn't find anyplace selling a widescreen one. Amazon.com lists only the 1.33:1 version.

Re:All of them?

[iainl]

It really does look like someone just cross-referenced a list of all MGM DVDs with a lookup to the IMDb to find out which films were listed as 1.66:1 or 1.85:1, without the slightest bit of fact checking first.

Some of these, given MGM's slipshod efforts with budget titles, may even actually be misframed, but the films I know well aren't.

Re:All of them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget Breakin 2: Electric Boogoloo, arguably the pinnacle of modern cinema.

Text

[psi42]

Eallonardo, et al. v MGM, et al., Claims Administration Website

Welcome to the MGM DVD Settlement Website

You are a member of the proposed settlement class if between December 1, 1998 to September 8, 2003, you purchased certain MGM widescreen DVDs (DVDs for films shot in the aspect ratio of 1.85 to 1 or 1.66 to 1). To view the Eligible DVD List, please click here. To view the detailed Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, please click here.

If the proposed settlement is approved by the Court, Class Members who submit timely and valid Claim Forms may exchange each Eligible DVD for (i) a new MGM DVD from a list of 325 titles or (ii) $7.10. To request a Claim Form, call 1-800-285-2168 (toll free). Before requesting a Claim Form, please verify that your DVD is an Eligible DVD by reviewing the Eligible DVD List. To view the Eligible DVD List, please click here. Claim Forms must be returned to the Claims Administrator postmarked on or before March 31, 2005.

If you do not want to remain part of the Class, you must submit a timely and valid Request for Exclusion Form postmarked on or before March 31, 2005. To obtain a Request for Exclusion Form, please click here.

If you want to remain in the Class, but object to the terms of the Settlement, you must file and serve your objection with the Court and counsel on or before April 11, 2005. The detailed Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement provides instructions. To view the detailed Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, please click here.

The Court will consider the adequacy and fairness of the proposed settlement at a hearing scheduled for May 16, 2005 at 10:30 a.m., 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Department 322 Central Civil West, Los Angeles, California 90005.

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT DATES:
March 31, 2005 Deadline to Submit Claim Forms

March 31, 2005 Deadline to Opt Out of the Settlement

April 11, 2005 Deadline to Object to the Settlement

May 16, 2005 Court Hearing to Determine Fairness of Settlement

Re:Text

[Anonymous Coward]

The wording in the settlement seems to suggest that I will receive this "list of 325 titles" with my claim form, which I have just requested, via the toll-free number.

Re:Text

[cheekyboy]

To those outside usa? we're fucked

so that means, us outside usa, we can copy any thing with imputnity. yeah!!!

PLease note, MGM, you have 1 second to claim your $25, whoops too late, not funny now is it when we set the conditions is it, damn scum mafia prix.

Re:Text

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you care?

Re:Text

[Kaenneth]

Can a member of a class object against the class?

reminds me of...

[Anonymous Coward]

that Dodge Magnum commercial where the driver stops, gets out of the car and plucks those fake wide-screen panels off the TV screen and sticks em in the back of the car...

Er.

[Jethro]

So I can replace all these DVDs I bought for about $15 each for $7.10 each? How does that make sense? And does it say anywhere that they'll re-release these in /real/ widescreen anywhere? (I've got four DVDs so far and I'm still on page 1)

Re:Er.

[musikit]

well first of all you maybe paying $15 for a DVD but that $15 doesnt all go to the studio that prints it. the store you bought it from gets a cut, the distributor gets a cut... etc. etc.

basically what they are saying is they will reimburse you their portion of the sale.

Re:Er.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the article it says that you either get $7.10 BACK or you can exchange the DVD for another one from MGM (for free).

Re:Er.

[Jethro]

Yes, but not which one(s). I don't know if they'll replace it with a 'correct' copy or if they're offering 325 crappy movies I don't want (;

Re:Er.

[chowells]

No. They made a mistake in messing up the DVD: they should incur the entire costs of replacing it.

Re:Er.

[Jethro]

Great. So I'm still shafted on about 20 DVDs.

Re:Er.

[ShrikeDOA]

No, the settlement says you have two choices. You can exchange the defective DVDs for either $7.10, or another DVD. The text is a little vague on whether the exchanges are for the same DVD fixed, or just any other MGM dvd.

Re:Er.

[mpe]

So I can replace all these DVDs I bought for about $15 each for $7.10 each?

Rather they will buy them from you at $7.10 each. Even though you paid nearly twice that for them.
No doubt they will want to "have their cake and eat it". Both continuing to sell DVDs at a higher price and claiming that pirated copies (including those which don't have the full amount of DVD content) are worth more than this $7.10 figure.

Re:Er.

[mpe]

I don't know if they'll replace it with a 'correct' copy or if they're offering 325 crappy movies I don't want (;

Even 325 movies nobody wants to buy and which are actually costing MGM money to store.

Re:Er.

[mshiltonj]

They made a mistake in messing up the DVD: they should incur the entire costs of replacing it.

"Mistake" ... sure, that's what it was.

Re:Er.

[Jethro]

It's the vagueness that bothers me. Sure, I can get "a DVD", but I happen to want a really nice special edition copy of "This Is Spinal Tap" in the correct aspect ratio to replace the really nice copy of "This Is Spinal Tap" I have in the non-correct aspect ratio I have now. Same goes for "The Princess Bride", "Goldfinger" and "Foxy Brown".

Re:Er.

[mausmalone]

Well, it's that you can send the product back and get either $7.10 or a DVD from a list of about 400 or so. Unfortunately, the way this thing is worded there's no indication of whether you'll get a "correct" version of the movie you sent in or if you'll just get to pick a movie from MGM's existing library (or even that the list of movies you get to choose from will contain anything at all worth seeing ... MGM makes tons of movies, I bet they could find 400 or so clunkers that they'd be happy to unload on us).

Re:Er.

[Anonymous Coward]

So I can replace all these DVDs I bought for about $15 each for $7.10 each?

No. Read the site. You can *EITHER* replace the DVDs, *OR* send them back to get a refund of $7.10

How does that make sense?

It makes lots of sense, as long as you have better reading comprehension skills than a 6 year-old.

Re:Er.

[flagstone]

Well, yeah, I mean they couldn't possibly have meant to.... /checks list

* Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo

My God! Those monsters!

Re:Er.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a bullshit lawsuit.

They will not (and SHOULD NOT) rerelease any of these movies. They already are in real widescreen; the dvd's are shown the same as it was in theatres. Most any movie in flat (1.85:1 aspect ratio) will have more image on top/bottom of the screen in full frame. Likewise scope films (2.39:1 aspect ratio) shot in super 35 will also have some additional image on top/bottom in full frame.

Re:Er.

[Anonymous Coward]

But /how/ do you exchange it? I don't see anything on the site about that.

Re:Er.

[Shadow99_1]

You do realize that on a $15 DVD about $0.50 is the add on for the store right (at least that's what the store I work for gets from a single DVD)? & most big name publishers liek MGM are their own distributors to major retail outlets... So uh that means what.. $14.50 was the take in for the publisher of most major titles...

Re:Er.

[Anonymous Coward]

Another good reason not to be an early adoptor of any technology.

Re:Er.

[gbulmash]

The settlement is a FREE REPLACEMENT, or if you want to keep the DVD you have, a $7.10 refund.

Re:Er.

[WidescreenFreak]

*sigh* No, the DVD was NOT manufactured improperly. The DVD is excatly the way that it should be. The descripton of the movie's "full frame" counterpart was not explained truthfully.

www.widescreen.org - Visit. Read. Learn.

Re:Er.

[Deeze]

Actually there are 3 choices, you listed 2, the 3rd one being that you can keep your DVD which is in no way defective. This is not about the widescreen version not being a true widescreen version (the article is in dire error on that point), it is about the insert included with the DVD saying the full frame version is pan and scan, when it is open matte.

Re:Er.

[KillerDeathRobot]

No, you don't want those replacements. In the Princess Bride, for example, if you get the replacement, you'll be able to see boom mikes in some scenes. These films were filmed in the fullscreen ratio and then cropped as the director intended into the widescreen ratio.

Re:Er.

[.killedkenny]

The list of 325 movies will be the ones taking up the most space in MGM's warehouse. We've seen this drill before, from the RIAA, and from Microsoft.

Re:Er.

[Locke2005]

I've got four DVDs so far and I'm still on page 1

You must buy some really crappy movies! I can't find 4 decent flicks in the entire list! (And strangely enough, I can't find any of the hundreds of DVDs I own in the list)

Re:Er.

[Radius9]

The article was saying that the boom mike error was only on the first video release of a Princess Bride, which came out at some point in the 1980's. It has not been in any subsequent versions.

Re:Er.

[myowntrueself]

This is exactly the sort of thing you have to be careful of; you don't want a copy of "This Is Spinal Tap" recorded in Dobly, do you?

Re:Er.

[rutabagaman]

Sorry guy, but Annie Hall, Goldfinger, Robocop, Twelve Angry Men, Yellow Submarine, and Y Tu Mama Tambien are all great movies IMHO. But hey, maybe Steven Seagal is more your speed.

Re:Er.

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Proof of Claim" form (not online, you need to get it sent to you) has a list of the 325 DVD's that can be used as a replacement. You are not going to get a "better" version of your current movie, you have to choose from an entirely different list of movies. i.e "Mars Needs Women", "SheDevil" and "Beach Blanket Bingo" - oh joy, what should I pick? And keep in mind that your current DVD has to be sent back to them (they give you a postage-free label to do just that). I think a lot of people are thinking that they still get to keep their original movie, but that's NOT the case.

Open Matte

[miTTio]

I was under the impression that theses films' 1.33:1 presentation used the full frame of the film, not pan and scan of the matted, and that the 1.85:1 presentation was correctly matted and framed. I thought that the lawsuit had to deal with MGM's suppliment explaining that the widescreen version had more visual information than the full frame (regardless of the correct information). I doubt that the avid online film community would have stood by as 300+ films were incorrectly framed; I mean a couple of shots in Back to the Future got messed up, and this was known before the dvd hit the street.

-miTTio

Re:Open Matte

[Sc00ter]

I think you're right. I own Wargames and that's on the list. But it's clearly widescreen, not a cropped pan and scan film.

Re:Open Matte

[LMCBoy]

Wait, so you're saying that the films were origially shot with a 1.33:1 aspect, but with the intention of matting it to 1.85:1 (or 1.66:1) for theatrical release, and that MGM's "fullscreen" DVDs involve simply removing the matte? Wouldn't that mean the fullscreen DVDs have shots where the boom mic is visible?

That's interesting, I've never heard that films are actually shot with 1.33:1. Do you have a link for this?

Re:Open Matte

[b.e.n.n.y_b.o.y_1234]

Check out this excellent site:
http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml
(right at the bottom of that page open-matte is explained)

Ben.

Re:Open Matte

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. Many films have been done that way. The director composes the shot for 1.85:1, or whatever, but the camera captures extra material above and/or below the target area. Somtimes unintended things like mike booms will show up in the 4:3 version, because they were only paying attention to the 1.85:1 rectangle.

The debate, as ever, is do you simply want more picture (with less magnification), or do you want OAR -- the Original Aspect Ratio, that the filmmakers intended, regardless if it is 4:3 or 2.35:1.

If I understand the issue correctly, you don't have a butchered DVD. But you may have received false advertising that the widescreen version was "wider" or had "more picture."

I'm sure there's already a thread covering this somewhere at http://dvdtalk.com/.

Re:Open Matte

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked as a projectionist in my yute, and I got to see the physical 35mm film of a lot of movies firsthand. The 35mm frame is 1.33:1, and in a lot of cases, there's image on the entire frame, and it's matted down to 1.85:1 in the projector. Sometimes there are hard "letterbox" mattes on the film, but you could never tell just by looking at the screen if they were there or not. Back to the Future Part II, for example, had image on the entire frame for most of the movie, but the special effects shots were hard matted. Nobody in the audience ever knew.

When transferring to video, It's very common for studios to show the entire 35mm frame's 1.33:1 image on movies that are shot that way, even though you wouldn't have seen that much of the frame in the theater. The dead giveaway for transfers like that is a lot of room above everyone's heads. Matting those transfers down to 1.85:1 gives a more accurate representation of what the director intended, and you might notice that the frame has better composition that way. I'd say at least 50% of the movies I saw were not hard matted on the film.

This only applies to "flat", non-anamorphic films. Anamorphic "scope" films are a totally different story.

Re:Open Matte

[CapnGib]

From the text of the settlement...

"...The gravamen of Plaintiffs' Complaint is that certain representations on the label and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and misleading because MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio have the same image width as MGM's standard screen format DVDs.
MGM has denied and continues to deny that any portion of the packaging on the outside or inside of its widescreen DVDs is misleading...."

I take that to mean that the films were shot matted at 1.85:1 and presented theatrically at 1.85:1, either cropped or P&S for the 1.33:1 DVD presentation, which was further cropped for the 1.85:1 DVD presentation. That is stinky if indeed true.

Re:Open Matte

[miTTio]

While it's not a boom mic, this is a decent illustration of the importance of proper framing:

Here.

Look at the A Fish Called Wanda example.

Re:Open Matte

[Anonymous Coward]

What actually happened is that they shot the film in 4:3 mode with the camera having a viewfinder telling where the widescreen part would be. What they do is then essentially cut off the top and bottom of the 4:3 picture to get the widescreen version. What MGM did was make the false claim that the widescreen version had more information in the frame than the 4:3 version. Typically a widescreen version does have more information, but not when the director shoots it with a 4:3 aspect ratio and that is his intended target.

Re:Open Matte

[miTTio]

I agree that if it was a hard matte, then for fullscreen it must either be further matted or P&S.

However, for the two presentations to have the same width lead me to believe that it was open matte.

-miTTio

Re:Open Matte

[mausmalone]

Some films are indeed shot at 1.33:1 and then matted to their intended aspect ratio. This is so that there's some "buffer" room at the top and bottom where the editor can remove things like boom mics and improve the positioning of objects.

You don't see the boom mic in the fullscreen version because DVD's are created in the same way TV versions are: by scaling the widescreen version up and then panning around it.

Below is a link to an article about shooting in different aspect ratios. Here is the relevant quote:

The successful answer was Widescreen movies. This was, and still is, achieved in two different ways. One is by using the anamorphic lens which gives us an aspect ratio of 2.35:1. That's the real real wide movies. The other is shot at 1.33:1 and matted in the theater (with that gate that I mentioned earlier) to 1.85:1 which creates a Widescreen display.

http://www.amateurhometheater.com/In%20Laymans%20T erms/why.htm

Re:Open Matte

[iainl]

It would indeed be stinky if true.

Fortunately, it isn't. The lawsuit is because the info in the little "why widescreen?" section of MGM's booklets is 'misleading' (read: oversimplifying).

For instance, I saw Hannibal on the list. I know for a fact, because I (engage namedrop mode) spoke to Charlie De Lauzirika at Scott Free around the time of the DVD launch (disengage) that the disc is indeed correctly framed. Charlie is rightfully proud of the outstanding job done on the mastering of that disc.

1.85:1, or 'flat' films are shot on a 1.37 frame, with frame guides on the viewfinder to enable the matte to be applied later. For the 'pan and scan' release, they actually open up the matte to reveal the full frame, occasional boom mikes and all.

The particularly daft thing is that, for shots involving optical or digital effects MGM are usually right. In order to avoid wasting valuable effects work on areas of the frame that will never be seen in the cinema, they usually hard-matte these, and so a 1.33:1 transfer has to resort to panning and scanning again. I've yet to see an MGM disc where they've incorrectly dealt with this hard-matting, either.

Re:Open Matte

[l4m3z0r]

AFAIK lots of films are shot in 1.33:1 and that the decision to do this on some films centers around the fact that 1.85:1 is sometimes difficult to shoot depending on the subject matter of the film. This was especially true in the old days.

Re:Open Matte

[Anonymous Coward]

"I take that to mean that the films were shot matted at 1.85:1 and presented theatrically at 1.85:1, either cropped or P&S for the 1.33:1 DVD presentation, which was further cropped for the 1.85:1 DVD presentation. That is stinky if indeed true."

This is FALSE.

Re:Open Matte

[LMCBoy]

Great, that's perfect. In fact, A Fish Called Wanda is the only DVD in my collection from the list of "affected" DVDs in the article. Good to see that there's nothing at all wrong with my widescreen Wanda :)

Seems like a pretty frivolous lawsuit.

Re:Open Matte

[LMCBoy]

You don't see the boom mic in the fullscreen version because DVD's are created in the same way TV versions are: by scaling the widescreen version up and then panning around it.

Yes, pan-and-scan is how fullscreen is often done. However, in this case, fullscreen was done by removing the matte. So, in fact, you would see parts of the image that weren't intended to be seen, and these sometimes contain boom mics and other "spoilers". See the link provided by the grandparent poster in another reply.

Re:Open Matte

[illumin8]

I was under the impression that theses films' 1.33:1 presentation used the full frame of the film, not pan and scan of the matted, and that the 1.85:1 presentation was correctly matted and framed. I thought that the lawsuit had to deal with MGM's suppliment explaining that the widescreen version had more visual information than the full frame (regardless of the correct information). I doubt that the avid online film community would have stood by as 300+ films were incorrectly framed; I mean a couple of shots in Back to the Future got messed up, and this was known before the dvd hit the street.

So I'm just curious, as a potential buyer of some of these films (I like Princess Bride, who doesn't?), should I buy the Full-screen version rather than the widescreen if I have a 4:3 television?

I think that's what you're implying, is that the full-screen version has more information than the widescreen version, because the films were filmed in 1.33 ratio and the widescreen versions are actually matted.

I'm just confused by all of this: I have a 4:3 television that can display 480P widescreen, so I usually buy the widescreen version, but in this case, it might actually be better to have the full-screen, unless I'm totally misunderstanding you.

Thanks,

Re:Open Matte

[DioBach]

I'm glad someone brought this up - for an example of a director who prefers to shoot in 1:33 look no farther than George Romero - Day of the Dead is a perfect example of matted 1.33

Re:Open Matte

[miTTio]

It comes down to preference.

The widescreen presentation preserves the Original Aspect Ratio, and the way it was screened in the theater. The 4:3 would fill your tv, but the extra information *could* be detrimental to the film's contents. I posted this example somewhere else:

Here

Look at the A Fish Called Wanda example.

The extra information ruins a gag in the film.

I try to get films in their original presentation form, but some directors, like Kubrick, prefer the 4:3 framing. The bottom line: preference.

Re:Open Matte

[CapnGib]

I fully understand the difference between Open Matte and Hard Matte. I also understand that the key to this case is that the misleading graphic on the dvd box shows that FF = WS - sides cut off. This graphic is essentially true for P&S films, where the WS version is cropped and panned (ever catch "A League of Their Own" P&S on TBS, makes me dizzy). When the FS presentation is open matte, this graphic is of course false, but the WS version is still true to original release. Semantics, but no problem here.

What I don't understand is the particular settlement wording which says the movies which were "shot in 1.85:1" have the same "image width" in both 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 presentation. I am taking "shot in 1.85:1" to mean either shot (or transfered) with hard matte in place or shot (and subsequently projected) with anamorphic lenses. The only way for an anamorphic or hard matte film to have the same image width in both WS and FS presentations is if the original print was cropped to FS, then cropped again to WS (hence double-cropped). If the question is one of open matte vs WS, then the correct wording would be "presented in 1.85:1"

This list of eligible DVDs further complicates things, as the suit was originally filed with something like 4 films in question (I don't know which 4 films, and that might clear things up here). The final big list in the settlement is apparently every DVD which uses that WS vs FS graphic in a false way. This means either Open Matte or the WS version is double cropped.

My question still stands: are any of the films in question double-cropped? Given the number of botched transfers I have seen this is not an impossible scenario.

If the entire thing is just a matter of open matte FS presentation than this whole thing is pretty silly.

FWIW: Terminator and Silence of the Lambs are both on the big list and Hard-Matte

Re:Open Matte

[pomakis]

So I'm just curious, as a potential buyer of some of these films (I like Princess Bride, who doesn't?), should I buy the Full-screen version rather than the widescreen if I have a 4:3 television?

I think that's what you're implying, is that the full-screen version has more information than the widescreen version, because the films were filmed in 1.33 ratio and the widescreen versions are actually matted.

I'm just confused by all of this: I have a 4:3 television that can display 480P widescreen, so I usually buy the widescreen version, but in this case, it might actually be better to have the full-screen, unless I'm totally misunderstanding you.

The trick here is to realize that "more information" doesn't necessarily mean "better". Movies filmed in open matte were composed with the intention of being matted, so if you watch the matted (widescreen) version then you're watching exactly what the filmmaker intended to be seen. Removing the matte as a simple way of correcting the aspect ratio to fill a standard TV screen will show you more information, yes, but it might detract from the visual effect the filmmaker was trying to achieve.

Re:Open Matte

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

That depends if you think that having more information in the image makes it better, or if the director's/cinimatographer's intended composition makes a better image.

Re:Open Matte

[jilbert]

Yes - please correct the story on the main page! The 4:3 DVD releases were full-frame, not pan and scan. But the film makers intended them to be matted - hence the widescreen releases are correct. The lawsuit is only about MGM's wording in their marketing.

Re:Open Matte

[swv3752]

A few films are shot so both matte and full screen are kept in mind for the shooting. Apparently Eyes Wide Shut and the Harry Potter films were done this way so that it would look good for botht he theatrical release and the home market.

Re:Open Matte

[swv3752]

A few films were composed to be both. Of course this is more costly as it means that it takes more carefull framing not to let in boom mikes and all.

Re:Open Matte

[Anonymous Coward]

This completely changes everything. Now I may actually start buying 4:3 DVD's in some cases. More is always better, A Fish Called Wanda notwithstanding.

James Bond movies

[VernonNemitz]

Offhand (without doublechecking on 'net), I think these are MGM releases. I have about twenty of them in "widescreen". Thanks for the info!

Re:James Bond movies

[Atlantis69]

After poring over the list of "bad" DVDs, the following Bond movies appear to be affected: - Dr. No - From Russia With Love - Goldfinger - Live and Let Die Not too bad considering there are 20 movies in total. What concerns me is, I'm from Australia, but picked up the entire collection from a US website when the DVDs weren't available down under. How would that work in the scheme of things ?

Re:James Bond movies

[BlackHawk-666]

You're hosed, and now they will come and arrest you for grey imports. What colour would you like your hand-cuffs in?

Woody Allen?

[Jethro]

Don't forget all the Bond movies, which I think benefit from widescreen a bit more than, say, "Zelig"...

Re:Woody Allen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget all the Bond movies,

Looks like it's just the old ones, though - I don't see the most recent few on that list.

Re:Woody Allen?

[Jethro]

I know, I posted before reading the entire list. Still gets me for most the ones I have...

Sick, outraged.

[t_allardyce]

At some point in time someone must have invented the process of pan & scan and I would bet the horse that it was some PHB TV network producer with too much coke up his nose. pan & scan is like raping the director, although some directors feel its 'ok' to do this if they are getting enough money, im sure those same directors would feel it ok to pimp their daughters for the right price. Doing that to a film and then cropping it though! I don't know who would be sick enough.

Re:Sick, outraged.

[Sc00ter]

It was actually to calm the masses that would call and bitch that the picture was getting chopped up. "why is the picture missing on the bottom and top of my TV!".

They later stretched it making everybody look distorted, then they ended up with pan and scan.

It was actually the consumers own stupid fault for not realizing that a TV doesn't have the same aspect ratio as a movie screen and calling to bitch about it.

Re:Sick, outraged.

[darkjedi521]

In the beginning, there were movies, and they were full frame and life was good. Then came TV. It took the same ratio as full frame and life was not good for the studios since there was one less difference between TV and the movies. Along came widescreen with its promise of "More picture than TV" and life has not been good for us ever since with pre-rerecorded media.

Re:Sick, outraged.

[t_allardyce]

Yes I know, but only a stupid network executive would actually listen to these people. Of course, nowadays, most people have wide-screen tvs and then fucking complain that everyone looks squashed!

Re:Sick, outraged.

[LarsWestergren]

pan & scan is like raping the director, although some directors feel its 'ok' to do this if they are getting enough money, im sure those same directors would feel it ok to pimp their daughters for the right price.

Wow! Someone is even more fanatic about movies than I am. I agree it is unfortunate that they cut away parts of the screen with pan & scan. One of the worst cases I have seen was David Lynch's Blue Velvet. It often lookes as if characters were talking into thin air since the people doing the P&S often cut away the character they were talking to.

But even though we dislike it, you really know the reason they did it. They weren't doing it because they thought it was fun, they did it because they were afraid that the unwashed masses would complain that the picture on their TV sets was "small" and had black bars above and below. Having wide screen TVs and home cinema entertainment systems is fairly new and still mostly the enthusiasts.

On an aside, I find it amusing when I occasionally find someone flying into a rage in a forum because distributors have "butchered" Seven Samurai and similar classical films on the DVD release since it isn't wide screen. However, the 1:33:1 aspect ratio on the DVD is actually correct, that IS the original ratio the film was shot in and shown in the theatres. Widescreen films didn't come until later.

Re:Sick, outraged.

[RobotRunAmok]

pan & scan is like raping the director

Oh, it was worse than that 'back in the day.' At least today they buy him dinner first. Lemme explain:

Circa 20 years ago I was a young Quality Control Guy working for a Major Pay TV Network. I had done some straight telecine before, for both Broadcast and Cable outlets, but that day I was approached to do my first pan-and-scan. Of course I understood the process, but I was amazed that I was being asked to do it for a particular film without any creative or studio supervision.

"But, I'm, like, just a Tech Guy!" I argued.

"Use your best judgement," the PHB shot back, adding (with a keen if accidental prescience), "Do you want to be 'just a Tech Guy' for the rest of your life?"

So I did the deed. Panned and scanned a classic flick, in some cases choosing which actors' faces appeared in certain shots, and which were disembodied off-screen voices. Of course, this was before the days of even home video, let alone DVD, so there was no danger of anyone ever buying the RobotRunAmok-Cut collaboration with an Oscar-winning director, but it did air on Pay Cable before millions of paying subscribers, most of whom had prolly never seen the theatrical version.

It was less than ten years later, and the pan-and scan process had become a Great Art. Cable Nets were flying Techs, Creatives, Lawyers, and Admin Assistants around the country for tens of thousands of dollars to do across a week's time what I did that afternoon after lunch.

I'm (reasonably) certain they're all doing a better job than I did...

Re:Sick, outraged.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well according to another post this suit is actually just about how they described the DVDs and the claim that they cut down the pan and scan version isn't true at all.

Re:Sick, outraged.

[xTown]

Scorsese has said that pan and scan technicians are essentially re-directing the film, which I thought was a brilliant way of putting it.

Ok, Breakin and Breakin 2: Electric Boogaloo

[brutusbuck]

What are the other 2 on page 1?

Re:Ok, Breakin and Breakin 2: Electric Boogaloo

[Jethro]

*lol* now those two I do NOT own. (:

"Presumably..."

[YetAnotherName]

I'd be wary of this; from the settlement:

for either (1) a new MGM DVD from a list of 325 titles or (2) a cash refund of $7.10.

That list of 325 titles doesn't necessarily include fixed versions of the broken DVDs. Heck, it might be nothing but movies of the calibre of Manos: The Hands of Fate, Mitchell, I Accuse My Parents, and so forth.

Re:"Presumably..."

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as it isn't Rocketship X-M, we're fine.

Re:"Presumably..."

[Yer Mom]

I'd take Manos if it was the MST3K version :)

Re:"Presumably..."

[Lifereaper0]

One of the greatest MST3k's of all time. That, Delta Knights, and the one were they always say "Rosdower"

Re:"Presumably..."

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't make an exact count of the list of affected titles, but it's 5 pages with about a hundred per page, so it's pretty much definite that 325 won't cover it.

Re:"Presumably..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Gosh, and people wonder how I feel justified pirating moves.

Yeah, yeah, yeah; two wrongs don't make a right. But fraud and the recourse is even more fraud, and what the fuck?

How about a $2000 slap down for each instance? Fair is fair.

Re:"Presumably..."

[tgd]

They don't always contain the fixed version of the DVD because the "broken" version IS the correct version.

This is a case of an uneducated court finding in favor of uneducated consumers. Neither understand the way those films were shot.

Its a fluff lawsuit, junk law at its best.

Re:"Presumably..."

[iainl]

I can "fix" those "wrong" DVDs for you now.

Step 1: Thow the booklet away.

Step 2: Wonder why the US Justice system is so fecking dumb.

(steps 3 and 4 presumably being ??? and Profit!)

There's nothing wrong with the discs, they are correctly framed. The problem is that a particularly evil lawyer can argue that the booklets are misleading in their siplification of how a 1.33:1 version of a film is made.

Anyone found sending their favorite movies back to get a mere seven dollars for them should be laughed out of town.

Re:"Presumably..."

[DLWormwood]

and the one were they always say "Rosdower"

And the one were they say "MEGAWEAPON! MEGAWEAPON!"

And the one were they sing "They tried to kill him with a forklift..."

I'm sure we can keep this thread going...

Re:"Presumably..."

[Hatta]

Please explain? Do these DVDs show the exact same images you'd see in a theatre? If so, how were they able to get a judgement? If not, shouldn't they be considered broken?

Woody Allen films

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's down-- but does this apply to Region 4?

fixed or not

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

Would I be getting fixed dvds or just the same shit over again.

Re:fixed or not

[iainl]

As stated elsewhere, 'fixing the DVDs' involves removing the "misleading" explanation of how they make a correctly framed disc, and how that image compares to the 1.33:1 release.

Your DVDs are already 'right', it's just that 'wrong' doesn't look like it does in the booklet.

Re:How to tell if you are a linux fanatic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though you'll get modded down to -20 for that post, I still think it was pretty funny.

Re:How to tell if you really are a linux fanatic.

[Anonymous Coward]

2. Post as AC
1. Get the order right

WTF?

[sg3000]

Wow! A $7.50 refund for a DVD you probably paid $20 for!

From the settlement:

The gravamen of Plaintiffs' Complaint is that certain representations on the label and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and misleading because MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio have the same image width as MGM's standard screen format DVDs.

MGM has denied and continues to deny that any portion of the packaging on the outside or inside of its widescreen DVDs is misleading. MGM has asserted and continues to assert many defenses to Plaintiffs' Complaint and expressly has denied and continues to deny any wrongdoing or liability whatsoever arising out of any of the conduct, acts or omissions alleged or that could have been alleged in the action.

Wait a minute. Why can't MGM answer a simple question -- did they letterbox a pan-and-scan cut of a movie and try to pass it off as a widescreen movie? Although technically they might be correct, this is a pretty blatant way to try to rip off consumers.

I heard of a certain light beer manufacturer who was responsible for this. The light beer they were selling actually had more calories than the regular beer. When they labelled it as "light," the product was actually just light in color.

In other news,

MGM agrees to pay an enhancement award to Plaintiff Warren Eallonardo in the amount of $7,500 and an enhancement award to Plaintiff Joseph Corey in the amount of $5,000

meanwhile

The law firms representing the Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class intend to apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and for approval of reimbursement of out-of-pocket litigation costs not to exceed $2,700,000

Nothing says "America" like a big corporation trying to rip off its customers but denying wrongdoing, and a law firm who sues said corporation for millions but gives the original plaintiffs a couple thousand bucks. If we could somehow work this as a new verse into the Star Spangled Banner, I think we can consider this case done!

Re:WTF?

[GigsVT]

The whole denying wrongdoing thing is boilerplate for a class action settlement. I've never seen a settlement that involved the company admitting some fault, at least not formally.

I think the reason they do that is because if they admitted fault, the people that applied for exclusion from the class could then sue them and possibly win for large amounts.

Re:WTF?

[CastrTroy]

About the light beer.

As far as I've heard, Light actually doesn't have to mean anything when put on packaging. This is probably because light is a very ambiguous word. It could mean light in Calories, or light in salt, or light in colour, or in the case of beer, light in alcohol content. In the case of cigarettes it means they have a bigger filter, which makes you suck on it more, which makes it actually worse for you.

Re:WTF?

[Hrodvitnir]

Indeed. In fact, my copy of Biodome says right below the 1.85:1 label "Theatrical release format."

Not misleading my ass.

Though this could actually be a profit for me as I seem to remember getting the movie for $5 from a bargain bin.

Re:WTF?

[iainl]

MGM denies any wrongdoing because there is nothing wrong with the discs themselves. This can't be stated enough about the issue:

They are all as near as damnit correctly framed.

There are minor issues if you want to get picky - MGM frame their discs at a 1.77:1 to give a full 16:9 full frame, rather than the "correct" US framing of 1.85:1. The difference would be lost in overscan anyway by most people, though, so I can't say it bothers me much.

The lawsuit is actually about the fact that MGM have a little booklet image showing how you're missing information from the sides if you watch Pan 'n' Scan films. This is actually incorrect for most 1.85:1 films, as the 1.33:1 release isn't really a Pan 'n' Scan.

It's instead an Open Matte, which is where they remove the top and bottom frame mattes to reveal image that wasn't supposed to be there. This is still wrong, as there can be boom mikes up there, random crap down the bottom and generally the shot has not been framed to look right like that.

So no, you can't use this lawsuit to replace your 'faulty' MGM discs with 'correct' ones; you've already got correctly framed discs. All that MGM have done wrong is be misleading by oversimplifying their explanation of the 'widescreen' process in their booklets. If they'd just left the consumer confused, like every other DVD manufacturer, then this would never have happened.

Re:WTF?

[Alrescha]

"Wait a minute. Why can't MGM answer a simple question -- did they letterbox a pan-and-scan cut of a movie and try to pass it off as a widescreen movie?"

It's not clear that anyone asked that question.

The complaint is that the 'widescreen' versions of their films have the same image width as their 'full screen' versions, and the implication is that this is automatically bad.

As another poster has pointed out, if they took a movie that was matted in the theater to 1.85:1 and matted it on the DVD to match, the image width would be exactly the same as the 'full screen' version.

The irony here is that this is what a large number of people *want*. They want their movie on the DVD to be identical to what they saw in the theater. MGM may have given them exactly that.

A.

Re:WTF?

[BlackHawk-666]

It was probably just light in flavour. Great new advertising slogan for them "We take the flavour out so you can guzzle it like water. Slam it down, you know it makes profit^H^H^H^H^H^Hsense".

Re:WTF?

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Wargames is on the list and I only paid 5 for it! YAY ME!

Re:WTF?

[sg3000]

>The lawsuit is actually about the fact that MGM have a little
> booklet image showing how you're missing information from
> the sides if you watch Pan 'n' Scan films. This is actually
> incorrect for most 1.85:1 films, as the 1.33:1 release isn't
> really a Pan 'n' Scan.

You bring up an excellent point.

There is a difference between

1. Taking a regular movie, chopping off its sides so it's full screen [please give me a shiny star sticker for using the proper "its/it's" in the above sentence], and then panning and scanning to get all the action. Then letter-boxing that pan-and-scan to make it look like a normal wide screen aspect ratio. In this case, the width of the resulting abomination would be less than the original release, but the same as a pan-and-scan release.

2. Taking a regular movie which is intended to be letterboxed when shown in the theater (as you described in your post). When that cut is shown on TV, it must be pan and scanned to eliminate the stuff above and below the letterbox frame. One then applies the letterbox putting it on DVD. The Straight Dope has more on this.

I assumed that's what they did #1 when I read the slashdot story. The notice.pdf file isn't completely clear on this.

Re:WTF?

[squiggleslash]

Why can't MGM answer a simple question -- did they letterbox a pan-and-scan cut of a movie and try to pass it off as a widescreen movie?

According to this post, they haven't been letterboxing Pan and Scan cuts at all. It's more that the original was 4:3, it was letterboxed for cinematic release (and the director almost certainly intended for it to be shown in that letterboxed version, so that's not a bad thing), and then the TV release was, mostly, the original 4:3 version of the film.

Given the number of movies on that list that were from companies like America International (Roger Corman's old stomping grounds, used to make directors make several movies a month using budgets that were barely in four digits, which even in the fifties wasn't a lot), I can well believe that this is the case. And, of course, some directors, like Stanley Kubrick, wanted their stuff shown as 4:3 in the first place.

So actually I'm inclined to believe that MGM is probably not in the wrong here. The lawsuit's validity, for the most part, is that you could argue that MGM is in the wrong claiming that the "full-screen" versions were cut in some way (the usual disclaimer that pops up at the beginning saying that the film has been modified to fit on your screen): in fact, the full screen versions are the unformatted, not-even-the-director-had-edited-that-part-yet, versions. It's the wide screen version that was modified to fit on a screen.

Maybe MGM would be better off describing the films as formatted "as the artists intended", "for cinematic", or "for TV".

Re:WTF?

[mausmalone]

Wait a minute. Why can't MGM answer a simple question -- did they letterbox a pan-and-scan cut of a movie and try to pass it off as a widescreen movie? Although technically they might be correct, this is a pretty blatant way to try to rip off consumers. I'd really like an answer to that too. Does anybody have a screenshot of any of these movies? I'll check UHF tonight... it has both the widescreen and the fullscreen versions on the disc, so comparrison should be simple. I'm almost certain though that there's nothing missing (or at least that the movie wasn't made from the pan & scan version).

Re:WTF?

[neoform]

I don't get how they get off saying there's no false advertising...?

When i see the label "Theatrical Release Format" below the "widescreen" logo on my DVDs (yeah, i found 3 in my collection that are on MGM's list) that tells me that this is the version that was used for the movie..

they can twist all around it and say that the format 'widescreen' was used, but that the version they're selling you is IN widescreen.. but that's totally missleading. they know that. that should be counted as fraud.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

The false advertising is about the full frame version, not the widescreen version (though there are alot of people that are confused about it, I am not one of them). The widescreen version IS the *widescreen, theatrical version". There is nothing fraudulent there.

Re:WTF?

[Ryan Hemage]

And, of course, some directors, like Stanley Kubrick, wanted their stuff shown as 4:3 in the first place.

Not quite true: he was so appalled at how his films were panned-and-scanned that he started shooting them so that they would look good at both 4:3 and widescreen ratios. Certainly, The Shining was shot this way.

Re:WTF?

[Qzukk]

My question is, is it common practice for MGM to do #2? Why then, it must be asked, did MGM shoot over 300 films without the use of a scope or anamorphic lens? Was it just that much cheaper to matte them to letterbox for theater presentation?

Re:WTF?

[quisph]

If you bought a beer that was labeled as "12 fluid ounces," and you discovered that the bottle actually contained 14 ounces, would you sue them for giving you extra beer? That's essentially what's happening here.

The literature accompanying the DVD is technically misleading, but it misleads you into thinking you're getting *less* than you actually are. I don't see how anyone can claim to have suffered any damages because of this.

To sum up: The "theatrical widescreen" side of the DVD *does* show you the film as it would have been seen in the theater. The other side of the DVD shows you even more of the frame -- essentially, the entire frame that was actually shot; there isn't any more to show. And people are complaining about it. Ludicrous.

Re:WTF?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

This is simply a case of the Slashdot "editors" being lazy again. If you read some of the above posts, a proper explanation is given. Yet people are still posting here about this because none of the editors have decided to clear up this misconception. So what we end up with is discussion board full of redundant and misleading information.

I see this happen all the time here. And I only ever see it here, because only Slashdot has "editors" that are such a joke. If this is the way they want to run Slashdot, they're more than welcome to--It's their site after all. But it still doesn't change the fact that it's done very badly.

Re:WTF?

[KillerDeathRobot]

As I understand it, yes, it was just that much cheaper.

Re:WTF?

[drew]

I think they key accusation here was not that MGM was incorrectly cutting the pictures, but rather that they were advertising that there was more of the picture in the widescreen than the fullscreen (and possibly charging more for it) when the opposite was true.

Re:WTF?

[poot_rootbeer]

"a law firm who sues said corporation for millions but gives the original plaintiffs a couple thousand bucks"

Uh.

The courts decide how much money the plaintiffs get, not the law firm. All in all, I think it's pretty generous for Mssrs. Eallonardo and COrey to get an additional few thousands bucks each for free, when it was the lawyers that did all the heavy lifting.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nothing says "America" like a big corporation trying to rip off its customers but denying wrongdoing, and a law firm who sues said corporation for millions but gives the original plaintiffs a couple thousand bucks. If we could somehow work this as a new verse into the Star Spangled Banner, I think we can consider this case done!"

Excuse me, but are you the one doing all the discovery work or legal research that these attorneys did to force MGM into this settlement? No, you weren't. Its not like the legal research firms are open source and free like doing a Google Search on something. WestLaw and LexusNexis aren't cheap at all. If you want something done about this, buy some shares in Google and advocate that they buy one of the two legal research companies and make their results *free* like regular Google searches. Otherwise, STFU...

Re:WTF?

[neoform]

Umm, widescreen is a 1.85:1 ratio, if that were theatrical that would be a Special-Scope film, which in theaters has more detail on the film than a Standard or, "Flat" film would.. so no, i'm infact getting less since the Pan-Scaned version of a movie is a trimmed version, then trimming it again into a supposed 'wide-screen' version is getting far less than if it was REAL wide screen.

Re:Wow. MIRROR

[Lord Prox]

Here is a mirror.... for what it's worth.

now fetching a bucket for when my server pukes.

BIODOME

[killmenow]

YES! Thankfully I can get a new, proper wide-screen formatted version of BIODOME. Full screen just ruins that movie (not to mention the cast).

Re:BIODOME

[blogan]

I have a copy of "The Extreme Adventures of Super Dave" that was given as a gag. I'm curious what will happen if I send it in. Did they actually repress all these films or are they hoping that some people won't claim a certain film. Maybe I'll just get a call from MGM that says they'll give me $50 if I don't want Super Dave in the proper aspect ratio.

Re:BIODOME

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Ahhh whatever....hey I kind of liked it...I still think the fruit at the bottom joke was kind of funny.....and the laughing gas scene was not bad either...

Re:BIODOME

[freeze128]

I'm torn between:
- Seeing LESS of Pauly Shore
and
- Seeing Pauly Shore reduced slightly in size.

Heard about this a few days ago...

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy over at widescreen.org posted something about this settlement a few days ago. Looks like some people thought that it was some kind of anti-widescreen attack when it's more about false advertising of full-screen, open-matte presentations.

Fortunately, it looks like MGM is probably going to be the only ones open to this kind of lawsuit. I'll bet the lawyers are really happy right now, though! $2 million for the lawyers! I'm in the wrong profession.

Re:Heard about this a few days ago...

[tialaramex]

Well, that guy may know what he's talking about with film (although guessing what a movie director intended from what was shown in the theatre is... imprecise at best) but he knows nothing about computers

He starts ranting about the definition of a megabyte/ gigabyte part way through, claiming storage manufacturers invented the idea of using metric to screw over customers.

That's just not true. Everyone uses metric except for RAM chip makers and a few other people who work only in powers of two. The fundamental hardware design makes it impractical to have a million bytes or a billion bytes of storage on the chip, you have to make it a power of two in order to address it sensibly from hardware. It's easier to just not worry about the extra fraction and call it 1GB or whatever.

[ Note how hard disks don't come in "power of two seeming" sizes? 4GB? Yes. 12GB? Er... 40GB? Nope, losing me. 200GB? Still not a power of two. It's not a coincidence, it's not a conspiracy it's just physics ]

Your 100Mbit network card? That's 100 000 000 bits per second, not 100 x 1024 x 1024 bits. Your 1.2 Megapixel camera? That's 1 200 000 picture elements, not 1.2 x 1024 x 1024. It's the same for practically everything, except RAM.

A more legitimate gripe (but one I still don't support) is that they advertise the theoretical capacity of the disk rather than the formatted capacity when running Windows 98SE. But this argument goes nowhere, you can store a different amount if you use Windows XP, and yet a different amount in Linux. If you use a lot of small files in BeOS it will declare the disk "full" even when it's half empty. Why is this the responsibility of the hard disk maker?

Some people have (wrongly) claimed that disk manufacturers include things like space reserved for replacing failed blocks, or firmware test tracks in their advertised sizes. This isn't true, the reported ATA capacity is all addressable from the operating system. Reserved areas are not reported at all.

The only storage industry gripe I do support is the complaint about the "compression assumption" in tape and tape drive descriptions. All tape manufacturers seem to have agreed to pretend that you can compress data by 2:1 when storing it on tape. But today many archives are full of JPEGs, MP3s compressed tarballs or packages, and other things which don't compress further. Unfortunately no-one wants to be first to say "Our tapes are now half the size they used to be".

Re:Heard about this a few days ago...

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't true. Hard Drive are storage. They are, like floppy disks, originally based on 512 byte sectors.

FDD:
180k (not 184k) = 9 x 512 byte sector x 40 tracks = 184,320 bytes
360k (not 368k) = 9 x 512 byte/sector x 40 tracks x 2 sides = 368,640
720k (not 720k) = 9 x 512 bytes/sector x 80 tracks x 2 sides = 737,280
1.44MB (not 1.47MB) = 18 x 512 bytes/sector x 80 tracks x 2 sides = 1,474,560

HDD:
Shugart ST-412
17 x 512 bytes/sector x 320 tracks x 4 sides = 11,141,120 bytes.
AFAIK, this was sold as a 10MB drive; the 12MB as the name suggests refers to *unformatted capacity*.

The current HDD size marketing hype is about formatted capacity.

Re:Heard about this a few days ago...

[cheekyboy]

And lawyers in australia are complaining that working on a PER HOUR rate is demeaning and blue colar, and it doesnt encourage productive work because it encourages 'more hours'. They prefer a contract basis like any profession, a fixed fee for said service, even if it turns out to be less or more hours than thought, it will give clients peace of mind for fixed fees.

What about viewing time?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do I get refunded at my off-hours rate for the time I wasted viewing this?

007

[Malicious]

If you own any of the James Bond collections, the following ones are on the list:
Dr. No.
Gold Finger
From Russia with Love
Man with the Golden Gun
Live and Let Die

I'm going to stake my claim right now.

Re:007

[Anonymous Coward]

But does it affect Australia??!?!?!!?!?!?

Re:007

[Anonymous Coward]

The system is automated too and voice recognition. I suggest using Dr. No as your claim since it understood that on the first try. ;)

I wasnt aware...

[Noofus]

This pisses me off as I have a huge collection of DVDs and many are MGMs. All widescreen. Are they trying to tell me I can give up the DVD I bought in exchange for some other movie that is also not fixed? WHy dont they fix the DVDs they screwed up and promise to exchanged the messed up ones for the good ones? SUre thats expensive, but dammit I paid for a wide-screen DVD and I want to get what I paid for. Not some pan-n-scan crap.

I see spaceballs is on the list and now I realize why I always thought it looked funny when I watched it. I must not have been paying close attention to my other MGM DVDs....

I wonder if they will sometime in the future fix the movies, and then try to make us pay for them when we want to exhange the crappy DVDs for the real ones.

Re:I wasnt aware...

[WidescreenFreak]

No, you have it backwards. The widescren movies are in their original aspect ratio of either 1.66:1 or 1.85:1. The DVDs are NOT broken. MGM got in trouble by misrepresenting the fact on how the "full frame" version compares.

Kindly educate yourself.

Re:I wasnt aware...

[stinerman]

Thats just the thing. We all paid for wide-screen (16:9) DVDs and now they're telling us that:

1) The movies aren't actually widescreen
2) We won't replace it with a corrected version

I'm sure as hell not giving them my movie in exchange for $7.10 -- they'll probably rewrap them and sell them as new -- but who knows what crap will be on the list of 325 movies for which I can exchange my bad copy. Its probably a bunch of stuff they couldn't sell anyway. If anything I should get $7.10 and be able to keep as compensation for being ripped off.

I wonder if they will sometime in the future fix the movies, and then try to make us pay for them when we want to exhange the crappy DVDs for the real ones.

AFAIK, you'd have to file a request for exclusion and then sue on your own. After the case is settled, MGM doesn't owe you anything. So if you're hoping to get a fixed copy later on down the road, you might want to do that and talk to your own legal counsel about the issue.

Re:I wasnt aware...

[stinerman]

Many thanks!

I'm still think MGM made some shady dealings here. All DVDs should have the original aspect ratios in which the film was shot clearly marked on the box along with information about how the movie was cropped/altered etc.

Re:I wasnt aware...

[JFMulder]

I see spaceballs is on the list and now I realize why I always thought it looked funny when I watched it.
Actually, no you're wrong. I did a little experiment with the DVD once. Go watch the scene when the crew sees the Yogurt statue for the first time. Characters on each side get cut off in the fullscreen version, while you see the whole crew in the widescreen version.

A lot of movie cameras actually film in 4:3 and then the print gets cut in 16:9. Everything outside is not intended by the director and sometimes shows less good looking part of the set, like on Back to the Future. So some directors decide to take the 4:3 full frame, make a 16:9 frame out of it, and then then make the 4:3 VHS/DVD version out of the 16:9 version. And those complaining about quality, these films have a resolution at least twice as high as your HDTV, so stop complaining about loss of quality.

Re:I wasnt aware...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what the /. summary says but actually it isn't true. The lawsuit is because the films were originally shot in 4:3, but the 4:3 version is frequently described as being a cut version of the original.

Neither version is "cut": the widescreen variant is usually what the director intended, the fullscreen version is what the director shot.

Re:I wasnt aware...

[WidescreenFreak]

All DVDs should have the original aspect ratios in which the film was shot clearly marked on the box along with information about how the movie was cropped/altered etc.

Absolutely correct. I get e-mail regularly from people who buy DVDs (usually at Wal-Mart) that are not marked properly or at all.

Re:I wasnt aware...

[stinerman]

Note my reply to "WidescreenFreak" in this same thread.

Indeed, things were misleading on both sides.

Re:I wasnt aware...

[Noofus]

I am well aware and educated as to what widescreen is. According to the article posted here, to produce a "widescreen" DVD, they took the pan-n-scan version and chopped off the top and bottom. If this is not what this class action suit is about than I do not understand.

WHat exactly is the problem then?

Re:I wasnt aware...

[WidescreenFreak]

If you have to ask this, then you are NOT educated about widescreen.

http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matted.shtml

School is now open.

Re:I wasnt aware...

[Noofus]

Dude, dont patronize me. I was mearly going from the description in the article above. The blurb on the front page of /. says we are getting pan-n-scan movies chopped to widescreen. The website talking about the settlement offers no clues at all as to whats going on.

Instead of being so damn condecending about the whole thing you *could* have simply explained the problem.

Re:I wasnt aware...

[Noofus]

OK so now I am putting this together, no thanks to you. The movie was filmed full-matte and the filmmaker wanted to in widescreen, and thus cut off the extraneous stuff. When it was formatted for a 4:3 TV they simply used the whole matte (or part of the whole matte that wasnt in the widescreen version). If this is the case, how can a simple cutting decision turn into a class action lawsuit and actually get anywhere?

Re:I wasnt aware...

[WidescreenFreak]

Believe what you want, but *you're* the one who got all high and mighty with the "I *am* educated about widescreen" introduction to your statement.

As to explaining the problem, I had already done that several times in this whole thread as did numerous others. Perhaps you should have read the responses instead of flying off the cuff like you did.

Re:I wasnt aware...

[WidescreenFreak]

The movie was filmed full-matte and the filmmaker wanted to in widescreen, and thus cut off the extraneous stuff. When it was formatted for a 4:3 TV they simply used the whole matte (or part of the whole matte that wasnt in the widescreen version). If this is the case, how can a simple cutting decision turn into a class action lawsuit and actually get anywhere?

Exactly correct. As to why it turned into a lawsuit, MGM misrepresented exactly what you deduced. They made it seem on the back over *and* the insert booklets that the movies were actually 2.35:1 instead of 1.85:1 and were subjected to pan-and-scan. This would lead most people to think, "Oh, hey! I'm losing visuals on the side!"

In effect, they were fraudulent in their explanation regarding the differences between the widescreen and "full screen" versions, which of course was considered to be a deceitful marketing practice.

Why God? WHY?

[superdan2k]

Why has MGM forsaken my widescreen theatrical release of Bio-Dome? WHY???? All I ever wanted was Pauly Shore and Stephen Baldwin in all their big-screen glory!

Pfft...

[Jugalator]

Woody Allen, huh? Who cares about that g...

Arrgh, WarGames is on the list!!

But it says:

"may exchange each Eligible DVD for (i) a new MGM DVD from a list of 325 titles or (ii) $7.10"

In other words, they don't replace it with a proper release of the same friggin' movie? Grr... So now I just know my WarGames is butchered and there's not one thing I can do about it. Thanks a lot. Sometimes ignorance is bliss. :-/

Re:Pfft...

[Anonymous Coward]

All we can do is never buy another MGM movie on dvd, or any other media, again.

Obviously not a studio we can trust.

Re:Pfft...

[BlackHawk-666]

The best aspect ratio for Woody "I *really* love my daughter" Allen film is 1:0 - then turn the sound down too. To quote Ned Flanders "I like Woody Allen films except for that nervous guy who is always in them."

Re:Pfft...

[Varitek]

Woody "I *really* love my daughter" Allen

She wasn't his daughter. She was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and Andre Previn.

Text list of movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Posted as AC for your pleasure:

MGM Class Action Settlement
ELIGIBLE DVD LIST
10 TO MIDNIGHT | 1969 | 1984 | 24 HOUR PARTY PEOPLE
3 STRIKES | 8 HEADS IN A DUFFEL BAG | ABOMINABLE DR. PHIBES, THE | ACROSS 110th STREET
ALICE | ALICE'S RESTAURANT | ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN | ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN 2
ALL OR NOTHING | ALPHABET CITY | AMAZING GRACE | AMERICAN BUFFALO
AMERICAN NINJA | AMERICAN NINJA 2 & 3 | AMITYVILLE HORROR, THE | AMOS & ANDREW
ANGEL LEVINE, THE | ANGEL UNCHAINED/CYCLE SAVAGES | ANGELS AND INSECTS | ANNIE HALL
ANOTHER WOMAN | ASSASSINATION | AT FIRST SIGHT | AT FIRST SIGHT/KILL ME AGAIN
AT THE EARTH'S CORE | ATTIC, THE/CRAWL SPACE | AUDREY ROSE | AUTUMN IN NEW YORK
AVANTI! | AVIATOR, THE | BABETTE'S FEAST | BABY BOOM
BACK TO SCHOOL | BAD INFLUENCE | BAGDAD CAFÉ | BANANAS
BAR GIRLS | BARBERSHOP | BASIC TRAINING | BASKET, THE
BEAT STREET | BELIEVERS, THE | BENNY AND JOON | BENT
BEST SELLER | BILL AND TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY | BILL AND TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE | BILLION DOLLAR HOBO, THE
BIODOME | BIRDCAGE, THE | BIRDMAN OF ALCATRAZ | BLACK CAESAR
BLACK MAMA, WHITE MAMA | BLACK ROBE | BLACK STALLION 1 & 2, THE | BLACK STALLION RETURNS, THE
BLACK STALLION, THE | BLUE SKY | BLUE STEEL | BODY OF EVIDENCE
BORN ROMANTIC | BOUND FOR GLORY | BOXCAR BERTHA | BOXING HELENA
BREAKER! BREAKER! | BREAKHEART PASS | BREAKIN' | BREAKIN' 2: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO
BREAKING IN | BREATHLESS | BREATHLESS/RED CORNER | BREEDERS
BRIDE WORE BLACK, THE | BRIGHT LIGHTS, BIG CITY | BROADWAY DANNY ROSE | BUCKTOWN
BULL DURHAM | BUSINESS OF STRANGERS | CADILLAC MAN | CAMILLE CLAUDEL
CANDYMAN 2: FAREWELL TO THE FLESH | CARRIE - 25TH ANNIVERSARY | CARRINGTON | CATCH THE HEAT
CAVEMAN | CHARLES BRONSON | CHATO'S LAND | CHEECH AND CHONG CORSICAN BROS
CHERRY 2000 | CHILDREN'S HOUR | CHILD'S PLAY | CHOCOLATE
CHOOSE ME | CHRISTINA'S HOUSE | CITY OF INDUSTRY | CITY SLICKERS
CLASS | CLASS/YOUNGBLOOD | CLEAN SLATE | COCA COLA KID, THE
CODE OF SILENCE | COFFY | COLORS | COMING HOME
COMPANY BUSINESS | COOLEY HIGH | CORNBREAD, EARL, AND ME | COTTON CLUB
COTTON COMES TO HARLEM | COUCH TRIP | COUNT YORGA, VAMPIRE | COURAGE MOUNTAIN
CQ | CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN SUBURBIA | CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS | CRYBANSHEE/MURDERSRUEMORGUE
CUBA | CUTTERS WAY | CUTTING EDGE, THE | CYBORG
DARK HALF, THE | DE SADE | DEAD MAN WALKING | DEAD OF WINTER
DEATH WARRANT | DECAMERON, THE | DEFIANT ONES | DELIRIOUS
DELTA FORCE | DELTA FORCE II | DERANGED/MOTEL HELL | DESERT HEARTS
DESPERATE HOURS | DESPERATELY SEEKING SUSAN | DIGGSTOWN | DILLINGER
DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS | DIRTY WORK | DISTURBING BEHAVIOR | DOGS OF WAR, THE
DOLL'S HOUSE | DOMINICK AND EUGENE | DONOVAN'S BRAIN | DOUBLE IMPACT
DR. NO | DR. PHIBES RISES AGAIN | DUEL AT DIABLO | DUNWICH HORROR, THE
EASY MONEY | EAT, DRINK, MAN, WOMAN | ECHO PARK | EDDIE AND THE CRUISERS
EDGE OF SANITY | EIGHT MEN OUT | ELECTRA | ELMER GANTRY
EMPIRE OF THE ANTS | END, THE | ENTERTAINER, THE | EQUUS
EUROPA EUROPA | EVE OF DESTRUCTION | EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED | EXTREME ADVENTURES OF SUPER DAVE
EXTREMITIES | EYE FOR AN EYE | EYE OF THE NEEDLE | FALCON AND THE SNOWMAN, THE
FATAL BEAUTY | FATAL INSTINCT | FAVOR, THE | FELLINI'S ROMA
FIRES WITHIN | FIRST POWER, THE | FISH CALLED WANDA, A | FIVE ON THE BLACK HAND SIDE
FLAMINGO KID | FLAWLESS | FLED | FLIGHT OF THE INNOCENT | FLIRTING | FLUKE
FLUKE/NAPOLEON | FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL | FOXES | FOXY BROWN
FRANKIE & JOHNNY | FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN, THE
FRIDAY FOSTER | FRITZ THE CAT | FROGS | FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
FULL MOON IN BLUE WATER | FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY, A
FUZZ | FX | FX2 | GANGSTER NO. 1 | GET SHORTY | GETTING EVEN WITH DAD
GHOST WORLD | GIRL WITH GREEN EYES | GOLDFINGER | GOOD WIFE, THE
GORKY PARK | GREAT BALLS OF FIRE | GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY, THE | GREAT WALL, A
GREGORY'S GIRL | GUY THING

The list

[spacerog]

My apologies for the formatting. Just a quick copy + Paste 10 TO MIDNIGHT 1969 1984 24 HOUR PARTY PEOPLE 3 STRIKES 8 HEADS IN A DUFFEL BAG ABOMINABLE DR. PHIBES, THE ACROSS 110th STREET ALICE ALICE'S RESTAURANT ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN 2 ALL OR NOTHING ALPHABET CITY AMAZING GRACE AMERICAN BUFFALO AMERICAN NINJA AMERICAN NINJA 2 & 3 AMITYVILLE HORROR, THE AMOS & ANDREW ANGEL LEVINE, THE ANGEL UNCHAINED/CYCLE SAVAGES ANGELS AND INSECTS ANNIE HALL ANOTHER WOMAN ASSASSINATION AT FIRST SIGHT AT FIRST SIGHT/KILL ME AGAIN AT THE EARTH'S CORE ATTIC, THE/CRAWL SPACE AUDREY ROSE AUTUMN IN NEW YORK AVANTI! AVIATOR, THE BABETTE'S FEAST BABY BOOM BACK TO SCHOOL BAD INFLUENCE BAGDAD CAFÉ BANANAS BAR GIRLS BARBERSHOP BASIC TRAINING BASKET, THE BEAT STREET BELIEVERS, THE BENNY AND JOON BENT BEST SELLER BILL AND TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY BILL AND TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE BILLION DOLLAR HOBO, THE BIODOME BIRDCAGE, THE BIRDMAN OF ALCATRAZ BLACK CAESAR BLACK MAMA, WHITE MAMA BLACK ROBE BLACK STALLION 1 & 2, THE BLACK STALLION RETURNS, THE BLACK STALLION, THE BLUE SKY BLUE STEEL BODY OF EVIDENCE BORN ROMANTIC BOUND FOR GLORY BOXCAR BERTHA BOXING HELENA BREAKER! BREAKER! BREAKHEART PASS BREAKIN' BREAKIN' 2: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO BREAKING IN BREATHLESS BREATHLESS/RED CORNER BREEDERS BRIDE WORE BLACK, THE BRIGHT LIGHTS, BIG CITY BROADWAY DANNY ROSE BUCKTOWN BULL DURHAM BUSINESS OF STRANGERS CADILLAC MAN CAMILLE CLAUDEL CANDYMAN 2: FAREWELL TO THE FLESH CARRIE - 25TH ANNIVERSARY CARRINGTON CATCH THE HEAT CAVEMAN CHARLES BRONSON CHATO'S LAND CHEECH AND CHONG CORSICAN BROS CHERRY 2000 CHILDREN'S HOUR CHILD'S PLAY CHOCOLATE CHOOSE ME CHRISTINA'S HOUSE CITY OF INDUSTRY CITY SLICKERS CLASS CLASS/YOUNGBLOOD CLEAN SLATE COCA COLA KID, THE CODE OF SILENCE COFFY COLORS COMING HOME COMPANY BUSINESS COOLEY HIGH CORNBREAD, EARL, AND ME COTTON CLUB COTTON COMES TO HARLEM COUCH TRIP COUNT YORGA, VAMPIRE COURAGE MOUNTAIN CQ CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN SUBURBIA CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS CRYBANSHEE/MURDERSRUEMORGUE CUBA CUTTERS WAY CUTTING EDGE, THE CYBORG DARK HALF, THE DE SADE DEAD MAN WALKING DEAD OF WINTER DEATH WARRANT DECAMERON, THE DEFIANT ONES DELIRIOUS DELTA FORCE DELTA FORCE II DERANGED/MOTEL HELL DESERT HEARTS DESPERATE HOURS DESPERATELY SEEKING SUSAN DIGGSTOWN DILLINGER DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS DIRTY WORK DISTURBING BEHAVIOR DOGS OF WAR, THE DOLL'S HOUSE DOMINICK AND EUGENE DONOVAN'S BRAIN DOUBLE IMPACT DR. NO DR. PHIBES RISES AGAIN DUEL AT DIABLO DUNWICH HORROR, THE EASY MONEY EAT, DRINK, MAN, WOMAN ECHO PARK EDDIE AND THE CRUISERS EDGE OF SANITY EIGHT MEN OUT ELECTRA ELMER GANTRY EMPIRE OF THE ANTS END, THE ENTERTAINER, THE EQUUS EUROPA EUROPA EVE OF DESTRUCTION EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED EXTREME ADVENTURES OF SUPER DAVE EXTREMITIES EYE FOR AN EYE EYE OF THE NEEDLE FALCON AND THE SNOWMAN, THE FATAL BEAUTY FATAL INSTINCT FAVOR, THE FELLINI'S ROMA FIRES WITHIN FIRST POWER, THE FISH CALLED WANDA, A FIVE ON THE BLACK HAND SIDE FLAMINGO KID FLAWLESS FLED FLIGHT OF THE INNOCENT FLIRTING FLUKE FLUKE/NAPOLEON FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL FOXES FOXY BROWN FRANKIE & JOHNNY FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN, THE FRIDAY FOSTER FRITZ THE CAT FROGS FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE FULL MOON IN BLUE WATER FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY, A FUZZ FX FX2 GANGSTER NO. 1 GET SHORTY GETTING EVEN WITH DAD GHOST WORLD GIRL WITH GREEN EYES GOLDFINGER GOOD WIFE, THE GORKY PARK GREAT BALLS OF FIRE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY, THE GREAT WALL, A GREGORY'S GIRL GUY THING, A HAIR HANDMAID'S TALE, THE HANG 'EM HIGH HANGING GARDEN HANNAH AND HER SISTERS HANNIBAL HANNIBAL/SOL HAPPY ACCIDENTS HARLEY DAVIDSON & THE MARLBORO MAN HAUNTED HONEYMOON HEART OF DIXIE HEAVY TRAFFIC HELL UP IN HARLEM HENRY V (K. BRANAUGH) HERO AND THE TERROR, THE HIDDEN AGENDA HIGH SEASON HIGH SPIRITS HOLCROFT COVENANT, THE HOLLYWOOD SHUFFLE HOM

Re:The list

[Muad'Dave]

There are some pretty funny new movie titles in there:

• 24 Hour Party People
• 3 Strikes 8 Heads in a Duffel Bag
• 110th Street Alice
• Angels and Insects
• Another Woman Assassination
• Assassination at First Sight
• Kill Me Again at the Earth's Core
• Crawl Space Audrey Rose
• Babette'sFeast Baby
• Cafe Bananas
• Girls Barbershop Basic Training
• The Benny and Joon Bent
• The Biodome Birdcage
• Blue Steel Body of Evidence
• Born Romantic Bound
• Boxcar Bertha Boxing Helena
• Breaking in Breathless
• Red Corner Breeders Bride Wore Black
• Caveman Charles Bronson
• Cooley High Cornbread
• Harlem Couch Trip
• Trip Count Yorga
• The De Sade Dead Man Walking
• Death Warrant Decameron
• Delerious Delta Force
• Echo Park Eddie
• Everything You Always Wanted Extreme
• The Fatal Beauty
• Flamingo Kid Flawless; Fled Flight of the Innocent Flirting Fluke
  • And many others!

I knew it!

[mshiltonj]

I knew my copy of "Teen Wolf II" wasn't truly widescreen. They totally mangled the majesty of what it was like when I saw it on the big screen, in all its breathtaking glory. Have they no respect for the classics?

"Butchered movies"?? Educate yourself please.

[WidescreenFreak]

The list (PDF) of butchered movies

Ah, once again an unbiased commentary from a /. editor. How refreshing it is to see.

The fact is that the widescreen movies are not butchered. They are shown in the original aspect ratio that just so happens to be the aspect ratio as preferred by the film makers. You know, the people who spent countless man-hours bringing a movie to you in the method that they feel is best just so you can call it "butchered" just because you don't like the presentation on a $15 DVD?

Before spouting the holier-than-thou "butchered" dogma, try educating yourself on the concept of "original aspect ratio" and why ratios other that your prestigious, un-butchered 1.33:1 are chosen by the people who (unlike you apparently) studied film making.

There is, however, no excuse for MGM's misrepresentation on how the movie was formatted.

FB

[Anonymous Coward]

But can it run Windows 94?

What's your pride worth?

[ksdd]

If you own Body of Evidence, Lambada, or Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo (just to name a few), you would need to acknowledge that 1) you not only own the film in question but 2) think enough of it to want a pristine copy (or $7.10).

Is the remedy really worth your last shred of dignity?

Re:What's your pride worth?

[trisight]

Heh.. come on now.. you know you watch Breakin' 2 every night to get the latest dance moves..

Don't Jump to Conclusions!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would refer you to http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/ThatsMySay/ThatsMySay .asp?StepName=Read&ID=21 for the straight dope.

Calm down people.

Re:Don't Jump to Conclusions!!

[LordNimon]

Well, the link you provided still point out that there's a problem. If you look at this comment reply, you'll see this:

The plaintiff's arguments are that these films were not displayed in theatres in 1.85:1, but in something wider. Then MGM Pan and Scanned these down to 1.85:1 and released it as the FS version, and then added letterboxing and released it as the widescreen version. And the widescreen versions stated that they preserved the theatrical aspect ratio when in fact they didn't.

In other words, the wide-screen version is a pan-and-scan of the theatrical release!

example - from ign

[mvizos]

IGN has a great example of this, from when they reviewed the first release of the princess bride. http://dvd.ign.com/articles/037/037273p1.html scroll down the page, and they point out the difference.

Re:example - from ign

[Anonymous Coward]

A quick check on IMDB (too lazy to find the actual link) shows that "The Princess Bride" was filmed in Open Matte, so yes, the widescreen was made by adding the matte - as it was when shown in cinemas in the 80's. /wishes he had the Criterion LD to cross-check though //also wonders if this includes the Special Edition of Princess Bride or just the original.

Re:example - from ign

[mvizos]

it applies to both...ign review was of the original, had a friend check his SE when we found out about it. Both exhibit the issue.

Ghost World scene

[Doc Ido]

It's been nearly 4 years now, but I swear I remember a difference between a VHS copy of Ghost World that I rented and the version that I now own. I remember Enid and her father sitting at a kitchen table. I thought on the VHS, the camera kept switching back and forth from Enid and Dad. On my DVD, the camera has both of them in shot.

Am I wrong?

Re:Ghost World scene

[Catbeller]

It's called "pan and scan".

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

They are on the list.

Why those particular ones?

[the_skywise]

On Her Majesty's Secret Service is older than Live and Let Die... Why letterbox it, but not the others... or Moonraker for that matter?

Re:Why those particular ones?

[tap]

It's how the movie was shot. Check the technical specs on IMDB. Live and Let Die was shot spherical aka flat. That means the original negative isn't widescreen. The widescreen version is created by cutting off the top and bottom. On Her Majesty's Secret Service on the other hand was shot anamorphic. That means the original negative is widescreen, with a "squished" imaged that is expanded when the movie is shown.

This lawsuit is just a money grab by some lawyers. There isn't anything wrong with the DVDs. MGM had a description of what widescreen meant that was correct for anamorphic movies, not movies shot open matte.

Re:Why those particular ones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo.

There is nothing wrong with all of our DVDs.

Money back!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is false advertising and under UK law they should give you your money back in full. This is real lazyness on the part of MGM, who essentially have been ripping us off, and now they expect people to pay for a replacement they should get for free.

Shame on MGM - I hope you get taken to court over this and lose!

Re:"Butchered movies"?? Educate yourself please.

[MrP-(at work)]

Try reading the actual article next time

This class action suit is because MGM took the FULLSCREEN cropped 1.33 versions of the films, cut the tops and bottoms off and sold them as WIDESCREEN

These are NOT original aspect ratio (OAR)

MGM lied and sold fullscreen movies cropped as widescreen.

I have 5 MGM dvds I'll be trading in because I ONLY buy widescreen

Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

You people are all idiots. These aren't wide screen versions of pan/scanned transfers. It is due to their false claim that the widescreen movies have more visual information on the sides, where as they don't, due to the fact that the 'pan/scanned' transfer is really an open matte transfer. You aren't missing anything with the widescreen transfer, it is just like you wouldve seen it in the theatre.

I have a question...

[Tropaios]

With the caliber of the majority movies on the list I know I have seen many of these in the bargain binat walmart for $5.50, what's to stop me from picking up a couple hundred/thousand of these and making a nice profit? Besides the obvious amount of work involved, and the fact I'd most likely have topay for shipping in both directions?

Re:I have a question...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Settlement Class" means all consumers in the United States who acquired or purchased for their own use and not for resale widescreen DVDs manufactured by or on behalf of MGM which were created for films shot in the aspect ratio of 1.85 to 1 or 1.66 to 1 from December 1998 to September 8, 2003.

Re:I have a question...

[fred ugly]

what's to stop me from picking up a couple hundred/thousand of these and making a nice profit?

because the problem has been fixed since sept 2003. rtfa.

Re:I have a question...

[Anonymous Coward]

on the list I know I have seen many of these in the bargain binat walmart for $5.50

Except for the fact that he has read the article already...RTFP.

Re:I have a question...

[Deeze]

"because the problem has been fixed since sept 2003." Nothing has been "fixed", since nothing was ever "broken" other than MGM's decription of the difference between the widescreen, and fullscreen version that's in the packaging.

Le Chagrin et la Pite

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm royally pissed. Adding it up at an average of $14.50 a movie, I've spent $536.50 on butchered films. I've also spent about 100 hours watching them. Not only do they get away with false advertising, they waste 100 of my hours and $250?

FUCK. YOU.

A case of misunderstanding? Youbetcha.

[ClayJar]

As I remember my aspect ratios, the theatrical 1.85:1 ratio is filmed non-anamorphically on regular 35mm film, and then the tops and bottom are matted off. The full-frame versions of these films always have more picture than the matted versions (saying so is completely redundant when you consider that they are non-anamorphic, which means they *can't* be wider than a 35mm frame). Incidentally, when a film is made in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, there is no such thing as pan-and-scan -- it is literally full-frame.

Anamorphic aspect ratios (such as 2.35:1) have a wider picture than the 35mm film frame, and that widescreen picture is optically compressed horizontally (i.e. if you look at a film frame, everybody looks supermodel skinny -- even Peter Jackson). With anamorphic aspect ratios, the widescreen version is "full-frame" on the 35mm film, which means that a 4:3 television formatted version must "pan and scan" across the widescreen frame.

I won't even get onto Super35, the special film technique used in The Abyss (among other films) except to say that neither the 4:3 version nor the widescreen version contain the whole 35mm frame. In fact, the pan-and-scan version has more picture height, and the widescreen version has more picture width, but part of the 35mm frame (normally the "corners") does not show up in either the theatrical nor the television-format versions.

Basically, what we have here is people who don't understand aspect ratios and the relationships between film, theatrical projections, and television formats. Apparently enough people are clueless as to win a case about it, but then again, Windows and IE are still in the lead in market share. ;)

What this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is hell freezing over or did I just hear a European wanting to be included in the US legal system?

Re:What this?

[Carrot007]

(Must not bite)

Is that another american missing the point again?

Re:What this?

[Anonymous Coward]

the only point is that your country has to do it's own suing if you want to benefit from this.

Re:What this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, individuals should be able to take the case in the small claims court. Which would be much easier than taking a class action suit.

Re:What this?

[Anonymous Coward]

(Must not bite)

Too late!

Re:What this?

[philbowman]

No, I'm just interested whether my R2 James Bond DVDs are likely to be "Wrong".

I don't think getting my DVDs replaced is worth the prospect of being executed.

Re:What this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, not in America. I can raise a class action easy if I have enough names (well, a big enough lack of opt outs in some cases). And class action is easier to win.

Re:What this?

[Anonymous Coward]

None of the DVDs are wrong in fact. It was just a misleading pamphlet explaining the widescreen vs. 4:3 formats that was erroneous.

Re:What this?

[JDevers]

So, do you normally go out of your way to intentionally kill someone else? You know that only very specific cases of homicide carry the penalty of death, right? Even then, there are really only a few states which use it and only a handful that use it more than once every few years (Texas and Florida spring to mind...both of which are major tourist destinations...go figure).

Re:What this?

[philbowman]

OK, so I'm trolling, but it doesn't matter what I intend to do, only what a court thinks I intended to do.

Re:What this?

[JDevers]

More like what a jury of 12 people think you did and the preponderance of evidence shows that you did and why you did it.

Very rarely is someone convicted of murder in the first degree without a very obvious motive, regardless of the other evidence.

Re:What this?

[AvitarX]

Shit,
Crimes are now decided with a proponderance of evidance?

Re:What this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very rarely is someone convicted of murder in the first degree without a very obvious motive, regardless of the other evidence.

Like, being a bit dark?

Re:What this?

[Malc]

No, you're very mistaken. As any Briton will tell you: they're not European.

Pan-Scan

[Janosh]

Actualy it's not the top/bottom that is cut of, but the sides. The result is a zoomed in verson of a wide picture.

IIRC The framing of the film is desided by the cinematographer, who makes a decision i cooperation with the director. When you pan-scan a film, you actualy destroy parts of the artistic choices made by the cinematographer/director.

It's like choping the head of "Mona Lisa"(classic painting by Leonardo DaVinci) to make the painting fit inside a frame.

Re:Pan-Scan

[slusich]

I definately agree that pan and scan is crap. MGM was misrepresenting the movies as something they weren't, and I personally don't buy DVD's anymore unless they're widescreen. But to compare Teen Wolf Too or Valley Girl to the Mona Lisa is a bit of a stretch. ;)

Wait a second...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a few movies on this list and was outraged until I remembered something...

My copy of the Princess Bride was a flipper. I did a compare of the fullframe and widescreen version and found that the widescreen one was the exact same movie as the fullframe except it had black bars on the top and bottom. I always assumed it was because the film was actually shot in 1:1.33. I remember seeing PeeWee's Big Adventure on TV and noticing the chain coming from the bottom of the basket killing the illusion of the gag. Perhaps these movies really aren't chopped pan and scan versions. Maybe you're just seeing parts of the film that the director didn't intend you to see. If that's the case, I'll hang on to my movies, thank you very much.

Remember to read the small print

[SpudGunMan]

...if between December 1, 1998 to September 8, 2003, you purchased certain MGM widescreen DVDs ...

so if you got goldfinger for chmass in 2004,2005 you might not be eligable.

Now, i do have some movies like wargames that i bought pre 2003. However i wonder how they will check that its in the timeframe they allow. I just called 1800 for the claim but i wonder if they will require a Recipt of Purchase. If so then i get shit

Re:Remember to read the small print

[Moonlapse]

I suppose they could require it, but that would be a little insane. Who really keeps receipts for dvds they bought in 1998? We are talking 7 years here. If they fixed whatever the text says on the back of the dvds in 2003, then they would probably just look on the back and see if the false info is there. If you bought a copy in a bargain bin for $5 and its a copy theyve had in storage for 5 years then you should still be entitled to your $7.10

How many of these films were actually "butchered"?

[angryflute]

I examined my DVD copy of Ghost World just now, and matched up scenes with production stills from the movie that were put online during the time of the movie's original release in theaters...

I'm not exactly certain, but I don't think the DVD version of Ghost World is affected.

So what's really going on here?

Reading the suit carefully, what is it claiming exactly?

something doesn't add up

[Anonymous Coward]

from the website: "If the proposed settlement is approved by the Court, Class Members who submit timely and valid Claim Forms may exchange each Eligible DVD for (i) a new MGM DVD from a list of 325 titles..."

so, i looked at the list of movies in the .pdf, and there's around 560.

Last I checked, it was 1 movie per disc...and there's around 560 with the mistake, but they're only going to exchange a new movie from a list of 325.

325 < 560, so I wonder what exactly this "list of 325 titles" contains. I bet it's not the complete list of movies that are in question.

Hoax?

[Anonymous Coward]

So why are we just hearing about this now? And more importantly, why isn't there any mention of it on the mgm website? In particular, they should have something in the investor relations press-release section as this would materialy impact their financials.

The cost of either refunding $7.10 or replacing millions of DVDs would require a pretty harshly worded press release, or the C-level officers can plan on spending a lot of time in jail when the SEC gets through with them.

This is neither new, nor only MGM.

[John Pfeiffer]

MGM isn't the only company doing this... My copy of Grosse Pointe Blank, one of my absolute favorite movies ever, is a widescreen-cropped 4:3. So were the entire Back to The Future series...but I hear they might have fixed that... Now, I don't know how..since I was of the understanding that it was SHOT in 4:3... But that's for another day.

Re:This is neither new, nor only MGM.

[Moonlapse]

Yes, they fixed the back to the future DVDs. I got my fixed copies last year sometime. It really wasn't the whole movie that was affected, just certain scenes. Maybe 10%(prob less) of the movies if i recall.

Correct

[hanssprudel]

As usual, Slashdot is a source of misinformation for people who do not read the comments. The argument is that these films were actually shot with 1.33:1 aspect ratio, and then cut down to widescreen for the cinema (whether anything is lost in this process is a matter of definition - the viewfinder on the camera will mark what is visible when cut, so the director is fully aware when he chooses his shots).

When these movies are transfered to 4:3 it is done by expanding the image, not pan-and-scan. The lawsuit is because MGM claimed the opposite - that information was lost. (Perhaps "see it as intended" would have been a better pitch.)

For a good illustration of this stuff, see here.

Re:Correct

[Anonymous Coward]

So what will they send you if you make a claim then? If you don't want the $7.10 you just get a copy of the same DVD?

Re:Correct

[miTTio]

That's an excellent link.

Re:Correct

[Anonymous Coward]

... films were actually shot with 1.33:1 aspect ratio, ...

When these movies are transfered to 4:3 it is done by expanding the image

Wouldn't it be easier to simply multiply it by 3?

Re:Correct

[nodrogluap]

It would appear though that several of these movies were filmed in a 1.85:1 ratio, pan and scanned to 1.33;1, then further cropped at the top and bottom to get a 1.85:1 widescreen version for DVD. This is documented for The Princess Bride:

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/037/037273p1.html

The DVD cover holds the evidence, and is completely misleading.

Re:Correct

[Sc00ter]

What? No it's not. It's Open Matte, just what most people have been saying. The only cropping going on was to get the "widescreen" version to match what the director wanted and what was shown in theaters.

They didn't crop, and then crop AGAIN.

The misleading cover is what the lawsuit is about.

Re:Correct

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

So what will they send you if you make a claim then? If you don't want the $7.10 you just get a copy of the same DVD?

Exactly what I was wondering, just looking through the list I saw 3 movies that I have, and I'm not in front of my DVD collection right now, so I probably have more. The site is very low on details and doesn't even really mention what the issue is anywhere, much less what will be fixed if you send your DVD's back. If nothing has been lost and these have exactly the amount of screen space as was presented in the theatre then I want to keep my version. If the issue is just that they were a bit misleading on the packaging about what you got over fullscreen then how will replacing my DVD rectify that issue if I get the exact same DVD?

I'm more than a bit worried that if I return my widescreen versions, I'll get back fullscreen versions.

The grandparent poster, who gave the informative link to the technosound site, claims that none of the films were butchered. But based on the information on the site, it looks like that would only be the case if the original movie was shot in standard 35 or super 35. If it were shot in panavision, there would certainly be a problem, as the original filmed image is widescreen so any further formatting would lose information. Were all MGM films for those 5 years shot in 35mm only? Not being a film geek I don't know if panavision is used much anymore, although the technosound page shows "Mars Attacks" using panavision, so it must still be used. Maybe any panavision MGM films were done correctly (didn't contain misleading marketing) and are not on the eligible list.

It would be nice if there was an authoritative page as part of the settlement site which would explain exactly what the problem is and what you gain by returning your DVD.

Re:Correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, information was lost. Viewing it in the 4:3 means the theatrical viewing experience is lost to the viewer. But I'm sure it is all a matter of words and definitions. When are the studios going to get sued (successfully) for making us sit through advertising/movie previews/FBI warnings -- where on the packaging does it say extra advertising which can't be skipped is mandatory before viewing the product you bought?

Re:"Butchered movies"?? Educate yourself please.

[WidescreenFreak]

This class action suit is because MGM took the FULLSCREEN cropped 1.33 versions of the films, cut the tops and bottoms off and sold them as WIDESCREEN

HELLO!!! That's absolutely right! YOU are theone who is mistaken! They were filmed in what's called OPEN-MATTE where the movie is filmed on a full 1.33:1 frame but matted out during the theatrical presentation to achieve the correct aspect ratio.

YOU are the one who needs to RTFA.

Reading the notice of suit I bet this is what you

[NYTrojan]

will get.... The suit is against false advertizement. I'll bet you either get the Pan and Scan version of the DVD, or a DVD (Maybe even your old one) with a corrected label. I doubt very much they corrected all 325 of these things within this time frame.

something not quite right about that list

[he1icine]

Maybe I am missing something, but there are a few pan/scan only movies on that list. So no refund or trade for those who bought Breakin' or Breakin' 2 because according to my memory and amazon.com they are pan/scan only.

Breakin'
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/d etail/-/B000 09OWJQ/102-1179462-5076100?v=glance&s=dvd&vi=tech- info

Breakin' 2
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B 000 089739/102-1179462-5076100?v=glance&s=dvd&vi=tech- info

No more future purchases of MGM movies for me

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll never trust whether it's old stock or the newer fixed versions.

Settlement Terms

[RawCode]

Here is a snip of the text: "Class Members have the right to return to the Claims Administrator one copy of each DVD title manufactured by or on behalf of MGM which was created for a film shot in the aspect ratio of 1.85 to 1 or 1.66 to 1 ("Eligible DVD") for either (1) a new MGM DVD from a list of 325 titles or (2) a cash refund of $7.10."

This 'new DVD' phrase does not convince me that I will be getting a PROPER copy of the movie I have, but rather that I will be able to select a DVD that they have selected as a worthy trade (possibly one that has not been screwed with)

AND, I cant get the DVD anyway. I'll have to start a class action against MGM Canada for that.

For those who need to understand aspect ratios

[WidescreenFreak]

Not to tout my own site, but it's clear that a ton of people here need to educate themselves about "open matte" films. Just because a movie is called "widescreen" does NOT mean that it was filmed anamorphically.

Please ... before anyone else makes a comment about whether it was the correct aspect ratio or not, please read my section on matted widescreen as well as my comments on this matter and the various aspect ratios that are used in the film making process.

MGM was wrong not in the presentation but rather their explanation on how the "full frame" version compares. The widescreen DVDs in this list are NOT broken and do NOT need to be "fixed". The are shown in their CORRECT aspect ratio.

Re:For those who need to understand aspect ratios

[metamatic]

It would be better if your article didn't ruin your credibility by ranting about hard drives in apparent ignorance of SI units. "kilo" is 1000, and "mega" is 1000000; there are special units for binary if you want to use them.

How fast is your 256kbps network connection? It's not 256 * 1024 bps. A 200MHz system bus? It doesn't go through 200*1024*1024 clock cycles per second. No, the practice of measuring RAM and disk in base 2 units but writing them as if they were base 10 units was an anomaly even in the computer industry, and it's way overdue for it to stop.

Re:For those who need to understand aspect ratios

[WidescreenFreak]

I agree with you in principle; however, until such time as the computer and operating system industries adjust to a base 10, it is not the place of hard drive manufacturers to do that.

"Oh, but look! It makes the drives seem to have more data than the computers will recognize! So, Mr. Marketing Man, just think about the edge we'd get by selling a nice, round number as opposed to our competitor who is still selling the ugly, non-round, seems-to-be-lower-capacity drives!"

Right. You won't convince me or anyone else that the push from manufactureres was for anomaly correction.

Re:For those who need to understand aspect ratios

[Anonymous Coward]

MGM was wrong not in the presentation but rather their explanation on how the "full frame" version compares.

Actually, they weren't even wrong in that.

Thier description is entirely accurate - it's just being interpreted incorrectly by people who don't understand it.

From another poster:

"PHANTASM: OBLIVION is 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.

Re:For those who need to understand aspect ratios

[cecom]

Thanks for posting these links. When I read the initial article I was outraged, since I happen to own one of the movies on the list (When Harry Met Sally). I was ready to return my wide-screen DVD for an exchange.
Your site made things clearer.

BTW, I am really surprised there is a need for a wide-screen advocacy site. I thought it was a widely (some pun intended) accepted fact that wide-screen is how most movie creators intended for their movies to be seen.

Re:For those who need to understand aspect ratios

[WidescreenFreak]

You're very welcome. I'm afraid to check my site's bandwidth usage for today. :)

Re:For those who need to understand aspect ratios

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me? How the hell does that ruin his credibility? The HD companies are being VERY misleading...they know that computers use base 2 and not base 10.

Not to mention that your examples are absolutely horrible...200MHz, guess what, we're talking clock cycles now, that is base 10.

256kbps...that is actually a measurement of 1000's of bits per second. kB is not the same as KB. kB represents 1000 bytes, while KB represents 1024 bytes.

And not to mention...IF your examples were valid, how does everyone misrepresenting the data, make it okay? If EVERY single company in the world all of a sudden starting stating that the sky was purple, would that make it a valid statement...even if those of us that know better, still knew that it was blue?

Re:For those who need to understand aspect ratios

[Anonymous Coward]

"kB represents 1000 bytes, while KB represents 1024 bytes."

Disk manufacturers are measuring in MB or (these days) GB. Which are 1000 000s of bytes and 1000 000 000s of bytes respectively.

No-one is mispresenting the data, you're just stupid. If you often buy donuts from a shop that gives you "about a dozen" and find that there's typically 14 donuts, that doesn't mean you can go into a car dealership, ask for a dozen cars and expect to get 14. RAM manufacturers called 256 x 1024 x 1024 bytes "256MB" as shorthand, and now everyone with a copy of DOS and no brains thinks they're being ripped off by storage vendors.

Re:For those who need to understand aspect ratios

[metamatic]

Consistency is a good thing in measurement standards. It doesn't matter what the motive was for the computer industry to be consistent, the end result is still good.

Similarly, it was a good thing when America decided to join the rest of the world and roll out GSM phone services. Maybe the reason was that a bunch of companies selfishly wanted to make more profit by selling cheaper phones and being able to offer global service--so what? It's still a good thing for the consumer.

Americans seem to have enough trouble with metric as it is, without having people saying "sometimes M means 1000000, sometimes it means 1048576, and you just have to know when." Not to mention the possibility for software bugs from differing interpretations...

Re:For those who need to understand aspect ratios

[metamatic]

Why should clock cycles not be base 2 as well, though? Clock divider circuits work in base 2, bus speeds and processor speeds are in ratios of 2^n, so surely the CPU speed has as much reason to be base 2 as the disk size?

"K" isn't an SI prefix. Computer manufacturers are welcome to use "K" as an unambiguous prefix meaning "1024x", but it would be better if they would just use the standard SI prefix of "Ki".

The computer manufacturers used to misrepresent the data. They've now stopped doing so and adopted standard SI usage. The fact that you happened to prefer the misrepresentation doesn't change anything.

Re:For those who need to understand aspect ratios

[WidescreenFreak]

That was a very poor example for you to give. The fact that they're completely different technologies not withstanding, GSM is the addition of another standard that really doesn't give any confusion and it certainly does not give off an impression of a loss of expected value. Adding GSM to CDMA is like adding DVD+R to DVD-R. It might be a different standard but the end results are the same AND the capacities are the same.

When the hard drive manufacturers decided that it would be in thier best interests to change the definition knowing full well that operating systems do NOT adhere to the same standards, they were in the wrong for doing this unilaterally.

With DVD-R or DVD+R you get the same thing - a 4.38 GB disc that can be playable on most players. With CDMA and GSM you get the same thing - a cellular phone that works in most areas.

Now someone buys a hard drive expecting to have 200 GB free. Suddenly, the operating system reports that they now have 186 GB. Well, where did that 14 GB disappear to? The customer paid for a 200 GB drive, not a 186 GB drive!

The end result is that the customer is being lied to. It's really sad that MGM gets punished for doing the same thing, yet the hard drive manufacturers can get away with it.

Re:For those who need to understand aspect ratios

[metamatic]

If the OS is reporting MiB as MB, it's the OS that's lying to the customer.

Re:For those who need to understand aspect ratios

[WidescreenFreak]

Oh, really? Tell that to the people who still run Windows 95 or Windows 98, both of which came before this sent-by-God "standard" that you worship so well.

Re:For those who need to understand aspect ratios

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 95 and 98 pre-date the standardization of the metric prefix "M" as meaning "1000000x" in 1960? Yeah, right. Keep up the good work on that credibility.

Widescreen is the correct aspect ratio here

[sph]

I can't believe my eyes. Someone is really complaining that the DVD releases are in the aspect ratio that the director and cinematographer intended? Wow!

All these films have been framed for aspect ratio of 1.66:1 or 1.85:1. It's what the director and cinematographer wanted. It's the aspect ratio that is seen in theaters. It's the correct aspect ratio. Of course, the actual film frame itself has an aspect ratio of about 1.37:1, so there is more information available in the original film frames, but it's not supposed to be seen, and it's been framed out.

Because so many uninformed individuals seem to prefer wrong aspect ratios to black bars on their 82-inch 4:3 TVs it's pretty common to do TV/video versions of these movies by simply opening up the top and the bottom of the frame. This is called open matte. This way there is more picture to be seen, yes, but it's all picture that's not supposed to be seen. There may be visible microphones, visible effects, visible set pieces, that were framed out by the director and the cinematographer.

More explanation about widescreen formats and how they're done, with examples: http://www.modeemi.fi/~leopold/AV/FilmToVideo/#Vid eoSoftMatte. The page has also a demonstration of how Super35 widescreen/4:3 versions are done, which is worth noting, because it's the process that's widely used nowadays in high-profile productions, such as The Lord of the Rings or The Matrix trilogies.

Remember kids, it's intended to be widescreen, unless it's either very old or by Stanley Kubrick.

An interesting hypocrisy

[stinky wizzleteats]

As usual, the one most willing to hurl the accusation of "theft" is the party most given to perpetrating it. (in this case, the movie industry)

It may be that losing the opportunity of selling a movie to a party who may or may not actually buy it can only obtusely be considered theft. Stealing actual screen content for movies that were bought and paid for, however, most certainly is. I will remember this hypocrisy the next time I am forced to watch a "don't steal movies" ad in the previews or when I see the horrible brown antipiracy dots in the middle of the next film I go to see.

But where do I sign up?

[DoorFrame]

So I just went up and down that webpage and I can't figure out how I can sign up for part of the settlement, or list the movies that I've purchased.

Ghostworld, Spaceballs and This is Spinal Tap if you're interested.

Anyway, can someone give me a link for where I can sign up? Thanks.

Re:"Butchered movies"?? Educate yourself please.

[WidescreenFreak]

And how is this "trolling"? No, moderators, it's called "FACT".

Try reading here before using your all-mighty powers to reduce the karma of those who know better than you about the topic.

Ironic

[Dan East]

I think its ironic that MGM got in trouble not because the quality of the Widescreen movies was poor (it is the same thing theater goers would have seen), but that their Fullscreen quality was good. If the Fullscreen versions would have been typical pan and scan crap then their claim that the Widescreen version contained more information would have been correct.

My hunch is that they had a generic marketing plan to slap that text on every Widescreen movie, because in some (most?) cases the Fullscreen version was pan and scan.

Personally I never knew that some movies were shot in Fullscreen ratio and cropped to make it Widescreen until now.

Dan East

One settlement option not mentioned on the site

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand they'll also send you a sticker to apply to your DVD that will make into a widescreen DVD.

bkd

Re:fp!

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean I will get to re-download all those "widescreen" DVDs I downloaded from alt.binaries.dvdr?

Wrong!

[Betaman]

1. The DVDs they list are not all "wrong" they simply lumped in all DVDs within a certain time period and aspect ratio in. For instance checking UHF which has both Widescreen and Pan/Scan on one disc you can see the Widescreen has more picture to the right and left.

2. The DVDs that are "wrong" are NOT wrong. The movie was originally shot in square format and the director cut the top and bottom off to make the widescreen version. Technically the "pan and scan" version is wrong as it shows more then the director originally intended.

Re:Wrong!

[Betaman]

Here is someone else who explains it with an example:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?s=eb73f5 dd8ce3bf8ad5920e565a9fdfcb&p=5662004&postcount=25

I don't think there is anything wrong with them, so there's nothing to fix. The two examples you gave are examples of open matte movies. The full aperture of the film is exposed during shooting, giving an image aspect ratio approx 1.33 (fullscreen). But the director often means for it to be composed at 1.85 or so, and FX will often be done at the ratio it's intended to be seen at.

What I'm thinking the problem stems from is a little picture MGM has on several of their DVDs. It shows a clip from the movie in widescreen, with a 1.33 AR box over part of it, this is to illustrate how the widescreen version is better. The problem is, it's only factual for movies hard-shot in a widescreen format (usu 2.35). The Star Wars films are a good example. The original trilogy became a new experience for me when I first saw them letterboxed, because the panandscan process cuts off about 40% of the picture. For softmatte movies though, this little diagram is actually false. There is actually more image in the fullscreen version.

However, as my sig points out, it's not always right. One that comes to mind is Spaceballs, in the fullscreen version you used to be able to see the puppet rods of the alien towards the end of the film. In the widescreen version, the mattes cover this up. Also, for heavy FX movies, any FX are usually just done for the theatrical aspect ratio. So when making a 1.33 transfer, you could open up the mattes for a scene of two people talking (although now you could see boom mikes) but for the next scene of the CGI ghost, if the ghost wasn't rendered in the full 1.33 image, that part of the movie would have to be cropped on the sides to fit. This is why you can't always just use "zoom" on a widescreen tv to fix an open matte transfer.

So it comes down to two possibilites. If the person sued because they think MGM matted the tops and bottoms of already panandscanned movies, then a quick lesson in filmmaking would have straigtened him out. You'd think someone that into DVDs might take a trip to the World Wide Web to learn something new.

On the other hand, if he's suing over the diagram being false for softmatte movies, he's a pedantic ass, along with the lawyer who took the case, and the judge who made ruling.

Like the "panoramic camera" swindle of the 1990s

[The I Shing]

Back in the 1990s, when I worked at a camera store, my coworkers and I were excited when the "panoramic" cameras were introduced. We thought that they'd use a wider strip of 35mm film and actually take a physically wider picture. However, the only thing that differentiates a "panoramic" camera from a regular camera is that the "panoramic" camera masks off the top and bottom of the picture, leaving a blank space that tells the photofinisher to basically enlarge the picture onto a larger sheet of photographic paper. The actual image isn't any larger.

But the sad thing is that I used to try to explain to people that it wasn't really a panoramic picture at all. It wasn't using a larger piece of film to shoot onto, it was using a smaller piece of film to shoot onto and then blowing it up bigger when printing. And people would stare at me blankly and say, "So what? It's still a larger picture."

I'm just glad that this DVD version of the swindle resulted in a lawsuit and a settlement. To think they would do that to a filmmaker's creative work and assume that no-one would notice. How stupid do they think people are? And to think that these companies have the nerve to complain about piracy of their movies, when they're willing to turn a masterfully crafted piece of cinematography into a pile of crap and sell it to us under false pretenses. Uh-oh, I'm foaming at the mouth again. Someone pass me a kleenex.

Re:"Butchered movies"?? Educate yourself please.

[MrP-(at work)]

No where on the site or the articles does it say they're open matte.. If that is true then nevermind. But if that's false, MGM sucks.

Either way, might as well do the $7 thing since you get to keep the DVD anyway and make some $$ =P

PLEASE READ: Your DVDs are not defective!

[hivebrain]

The problem is not that they chopped the top and bottom of pan and scan movies. The problem is in the deceptive pacagking making it look like every widescreen movie was in a 2.35:1 ratio.
From: http://www.widescreen.org/commentaries/2005_01_jan .shtml/
Before any of you start to worry, the realistic side of me says that this was indeed a frivolous lawsuit - to an extent. MGM misrepresented the facts, but no harm was really done, either mentally or physically, to anyone. The whole idea behind widescreen, regardless of how MGM misrepresented the widescreen examples, is the sustaining of artistic integrity for those who spent a great deal of time making that movie - a hell of a lot more time than someone who sits and watches the final results in the form of a $20 DVD. MGM was a tad too over-zealous in representing 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 movies, but the final result was the same - the aspect ratio of what was seen in theatres. Their widescreen DVDs appear on the TV screen exactly as they should. I don't see that a lawsuit in this case was really necessary.

Re:PLEASE READ: Your DVDs are not defective!

[hymie!]

Watch Spaceballs. Look for the climax when the villain (whose name I forget) has a picture of the princess with her old nose. Then tell me the DVD appears on the TV screen exactly as it should.

Not just one...

[Chmcginn]

This seems to indicate that the DiCaprio movie is the third of the title. (The other two weren't about Howard Hughes, though.)

Phantasm IV Oblivion

[Anonymous Coward]

"MGM has denied and continues to deny that any portion of the packaging on the outside or inside of its widescreen DVDs is misleading."

Look at the insert included with Phantasm IV Oblivion. It states "PHANTASM: OBLIVION is 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. The diagram to the left of this shows that the widescreen version has added content to the left and right sides as opposed to cutting content from the top and bottom.

Since this movie came with both the widescreen and standard versions, it was easy to compare scenes and this movie clearly shows no added content to the sides, but missing content from the top and bottom.

So now the big question is this: Was this movie filmed in standard format and then shown in theatres with the top and bottom cut off? That is the only way that MGM can be truthful in their assertion that they did nothing wrong.

Re:Phantasm IV Oblivion

[AdolChristin]

From what I've gathered from this discussion, that is in fact exactly what happened. The movies were shot in 1.33:1 but framed for 1.85:1. That is, it was always intended to matte out some information to preserve the directors vision of the shot. When the fullscreen dvds are released, these mattes are removed and thus you get the whole image as it was when it was filmed that may include boom mics, cables, lights, etc.

OT: mod points

[Coryoth]

With regard to your sig: I agree, it is an issue. I set my preferences to remove karma posting bonuses, which helps a bit, but it still doesn't really cover it.

I suggest a more useful scheme would be to have an uncapped logarithmic scale for score based on mods. That is, you need 1 mod point to get to +1, 2 more for +2, 4 more for +3, etc. or some similar scheme.

Odds that Slashdot implements such a thing: very very low.

Jedidiah.

Re:OT: mod points

[hanssprudel]

Odds that Slashdot implements such a thing: very very low.

Considering that last time Malda saw my sig, he called me a troll and I was ip-banned for three months, I think that perhaps you should temper your optimism...

Mystery Science Theater 3000

[xtermin8]

If you're going to list the MST3K titles, give them some credit! This site manages to cheer me up http://www.archive.org/movies/movies.php

Re:Mystery Science Theater 3000

[forand]

Those are NOT the MST3K titles those are the title of the real movies that MST3K did something with, all are horrible movies unless you have Joel and the gang to make them funny.

Huf huf huf Mitchel the fat detective, hahaha I loved that one.

Blood Suckers

[lbmouse]

The lawyers probably get the other $149,992.90 per copy.

drat... in Canada and screwed again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice to see the settlement but it appears there is no recourse for owners of these DVDs in Canada or in any other country for that matter. Although not an accurate count I see at least 87 DVDs listed that I own. Thanks alot to you at MGM and your cavalier manner to intentionally deceiving your customers. My middle finger salutes you.

You're Really Not Losing Any Picture

[FrayLo]

ATTN: Your DVDs are fine. Its the inserts that are "bad." This isn't really a big deal.

from: http://www.widescreen.org/commentaries/2005_01_jan .shtml

Before any of you start to worry, the realistic side of me says that this was indeed a frivolous lawsuit - to an extent. MGM misrepresented the facts, but no harm was really done, either mentally or physically, to anyone. The whole idea behind widescreen, regardless of how MGM misrepresented the widescreen examples, is the sustaining of artistic integrity for those who spent a great deal of time making that movie - a hell of a lot more time than someone who sits and watches the final results in the form of a $20 DVD. MGM was a tad too over-zealous in representing 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 movies, but the final result was the same - the aspect ratio of what was seen in theatres. Their widescreen DVDs appear on the TV screen exactly as they should. I don't see that a lawsuit in this case was really necessary.

and http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread .php?s=&threadid=224367

It's just misrepresentation of the difference between Widescreen and Full Screen on the inserts of many of MGMs discs. The comparisons would show a widescreen image of a 1.85:1 open matte film and then place a 4:3 ratio box within that image to show how information would be cropped out. However, since the films are open matte, those representations would be incorrect and misleading.

Re:You're Really Not Losing Any Picture

[lowrydr310]

"With the dawn of television in the 1950s, many movie studios feared that no one would come to the theater anymore unless they gave audiences a new reason." Ah... the evil movie industry worrying about losing money. Wasn't the movie industry afraid of home video sales at one point, and now it makes up the majority of their profits?

Getting a new copy back?

[Malluck]

I count around 400 different dvds on the eligible list, yet they are only offering 325 different titles in exchange.

No where does in the actual suit does it say you'll be getting a new copy of the same dvd back. Just that you get to pick them from a list. You're probably picking from MGM's list of 325 movies they couldn't sell. This reminds me of the CD price-fixing settlement where they sent libraries dud CDs.

http://www.wisinfo.com/journal/spjlocal/2924649334 86275.shtml

Re:Getting a new copy back?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point.

Who's not to say you get a list of crap DVDs to choose from?

Exposes the silliness of letterbox fanatics

[dpbsmith]

For a very good discussion of the foolishness of letterbox fanatics, this article on Martin Hart's "American Wide-Screen Museum" website.

For years, DVD reviewers have been fussing about the artistic importance of maintaining the original aspect ratio. For years, studios have known that some video fans will go apeshit if the aspect ratio of the DVD is different from the original, but apparently don't know or care about whether the original frame information and composition was truly preserved or not. So studios just have been happily chopping the picture to the right shape.

This is just an extreme case.

Apparently letterbox fans don't complain; just so long as they see big black bars on the top and bottom of the screen, they are happy.

The fact that it apparently went on for years, without the DVD community noticing or blowing the whistle, just goes to expose the fallacy of the belief that a) cinematographers compose their frames with exquisite care, and b) sophisticated viewers can easily tell the difference between a presentation that reflects the cinematographers' finesse and one that does not.

Re:Exposes the silliness of letterbox fanatics

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently letterbox fans don't complain; just so long as they see big black bars on the top and bottom of the screen, they are happy.

And ignorant dumbasses like you are happy to have large chunks of the actual movie chopped off. It's amazing the raging hard on you dumbasses have for the black bars. We don't watch the bars. We watch the movie- ALL of the movie. Maybe we can just afford bigger TVs than you. ;-) Yeah, letterboxing might not look so good on your K-Mart bought 19" Goldstar special.

But then again unwashed little twerps like you just need to watch your Adam Sandler and Barely Legal pr0n, and you're happy as a fat pig in a MacDonald's dumpster.

expose the fallacy of the belief that a) cinematographers compose their frames with exquisite care,

Well, not in the corporate shit you probably watch. I doubt that happens in Die Hard 47 or Fisting Firemen 9.

sophisticated viewers can easily tell the difference between a presentation that reflects the cinematographers' finesse and one that does not.

The way you stated this just reveals you haven't a single clue.

Re:Exposes the silliness of letterbox fanatics

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the fact of the matter is that the widescreen versions are NOT problematic, you've just gone off foaming at the mouth for no reason.

Re:Exposes the silliness of letterbox fanatics

[Zed2K]

"Apparently letterbox fans don't complain; just so long as they see big black bars on the top and bottom of the screen, they are happy."

You obviously didn't really research this. Take a recent release for example. When back to the future box set was released folks immediately noticed that the first movie (maybe other 2 also, can't remember) was chopped incorrectly at the tops. Many called in and complained and a reprinting was issued and you could get replacements by calling in. But this was never made public on the boxes that it was a reissue and many went on their ways not noticing at all.

Re:Exposes the silliness of letterbox fanatics

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all OPEN MATTE Fullscreen is NOT the same as PAN & SCAN.

Second, there is NOTHING WRONG with these dvd. They did not apply black bars to a pan & scanned dvd, they applied them to the OPEN MATTE film, which is how they are supposed to be done. Your comment about "letterbox fanatics" is extremely inaccurate. If the widescreen versions of HUNDREDS of dvd's were missing information all these years, people would have known by now. Only the packaging was incorrect. Do not send your dvd's in thinking you are getting a "corrected" replacement.

Also, the Back to the Future problem was that some scenes on the widescreen were actually cropped wrong. The fullscreen of those films does contain more information, however MORE doesn't always mean better.

I hoped this cleared things up.

Re:"Butchered movies"?? Educate yourself please.

[IPFreely]

I don't doubt your knowledge on the subject, or the veracity of the link you provide. But there is still a little room for discussion on exactly what MGM did.

From your link, the view frame can be cut different ways from the original film, getting different maximum frame for an aspect ratio.

But what if the view cut is made at the proper ratio but not at the maximum size within the original film (open mask aside)? I can cut a small rectangle out of the center of the film at the proper ratio and call it "widescreen ratio" but that doesn't make it widescreen content. The question seems not to be what ratio was used, but how much was cropped off of all sides to get to that ratio. If more was cropped off of some sides than was really necessary to make a proper "widescreen" image, then the viewer is still losing image.

And (stupid lawyer jokes aside) I doubt it would have gotten this far if it was simply a case of someone not understanding croping methods.

Phantasm IV Oblivion

[DodgeRules]

"MGM has denied and continues to deny that any portion of the packaging on the outside or inside of its widescreen DVDs is misleading."

Look at the insert included with Phantasm IV Oblivion. It states "PHANTASM: OBLIVION is 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." The diagram to the left of this shows that the widescreen version has added content to the left and right sides as opposed to cutting content from the top and bottom.

Since this movie came with both the widescreen and standard versions, it was easy to compare scenes and this movie clearly shows no added content to the sides, but missing content from the top and bottom.

So now the big question is this: Was this movie filmed in standard format and then shown in theatres with the top and bottom cut off? That is the only way that MGM can be truthful in their assertion that they did nothing wrong.

(I originally posted this, but forgot to login, so it was listed as Anonymous Coward. LOL)

Re:"Butchered movies"?? Educate yourself please.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This class action suit is because MGM took the FULLSCREEN cropped 1.33 versions of the films, cut the tops and bottoms off and sold them as WIDESCREEN"

Educate yourself dude. This statement is entirely false.

Re:Like the "panoramic camera" swindle of the 1990

[mausmalone]

First, I liked the panoramic pictures, and I knew exactly what was going on. I just like to shoot on a wider format, and the guide in the viewfinder was helpful. Besides, with my little "point and shoot" camera, film quality isn't really a major concern.

Second of all, I'm not gonna foam at the mouth until I see some screenshots for comparrison. I can't honestly believe that I would've bought 4 of those movies, watched them, and then never noticed that there was stuff missing both on the sides and on the top & bottom.

Re:"Butchered movies"?? Educate yourself please.

[caldaan]

It wasn't because someone didn't understand cropping marks. MGM in many cases tried to explain the difference between widescreen and not widescreen. In this presentation they made every movie appear as if it was 2.35:1, which most weren't and that the non wide screen movies were pan and scan. However, their non wide screen movies where open matte, not pan and scan and hence actually had more information than the widescreen counterparts.

It was false advertising, plain and simple.

Re:How many of these films were actually "butchere

[Anonymous Coward]

It's claiming that MGM's *description* of how the full frame versions is created is false. The widescreen versions are not "butchered", they are perfectly correct. In the description of how the full frame movies are done, they show that it was done pan and scan, when in fact it was a full frame transfer. It has no effect on the widescreen version.

Hmmm

[AviLazar]

but what about all of those ripped movies? can we claim loss against those? I mean those Dvd's cost money.

So I was looking at the list:

Electra? I have heard of straight to DvD, but this movie hasn't even been released in theatres? Or is this another version?

Well I am happy to say, on the list, i only "own" Rocky 1-5 :)

Re:"Butchered movies"?? Educate yourself please.

[WidescreenFreak]

I can cut a small rectangle out of the center of the film at the proper ratio and call it "widescreen ratio" but that doesn't make it widescreen content.

That is purely subjective. Is a screen wider because the visuals that were recorded are wider (anamorphic) or is it wider because the aspect ratio is greater than 1.33:1?

I doubt it would have gotten this far if it was simply a case of someone not understanding croping methods.

No argument there. In my Jauary commentary, I even explain why what MGM did was wrong. It was deceptive marketing, plain and simple, and they got taken to task for it.

Re:Like the "panoramic camera" swindle of the 1990

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just glad that this DVD version of the swindle resulted in a lawsuit and a settlement.

You know what the funny thing is?

It is that the swindle happened when filming the movie.

Those movies were shot in exactly the same way that the panoramic cameras work.

To think they would do that to a filmmaker's creative work and assume that no-one would notice.

The guy who did the swindle was the director and he did it before the film was shown to the first critic.

How stupid do they think people are?

Well, based on posts on this story, they underestimated the general stupidity by a lot.

Keep reading comments

[Anonymous Coward]

The one you have is correct, it's just that MGM made an erroneous claim in a pamphlet included that your widescreen edition was the original format or that it contains more information than the 4:3 format.

Re:"Butchered movies"?? Educate yourself please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, Please somebody, mod this up from troll. It is most certainly not a troll post. It is 100% correct.

The widescreen versions are NOT BUTCHERED. The are the correct format and ratio. It is the fact that the full frame process is documented incorrectly as being p&s when it's actually open matte that is the error.

Can I sue?

[HarveyBirdman]

I want to sue movie studios for all those 2 hour blocks of my life wasted on dumbass movies that I had to take dates to see. Gawds, the tripe I have been dragged to in the pursuit of a fuck.

Troy. I was made to sit through Troy.

*shudder*

I had to watch Lawrence Of Arabia *and* The Quiet Man the next day as an antidote.

Re:"Butchered movies"?? Educate yourself please.

[Anonymous Coward]

No you don't get to keep the dvd. You send them the dvd, you get $7.

Thanks MGM. Now they're collectible!

[krick-zero]

All I have to do is buy a bunch of them up, wait for all the other ones to get destroyed and presto, instant collectible. Ebay, here I come.

"Entitled" to new DVDs?

[J. Charles Holt]

After reading all the details, it seems to me that MGM is actually in the right here. But I'm apparently "entitled" to have about 10 of my movies replaced. Seeing as how I agree with MGM, though, it would be wrong of me to take advantage. On the other hand, it only costs them about $.75 to produce each movie, and they're not movies I would normally buy anyway... Oh my God! It IS about movie piracy!

Re:"Entitled" to new DVDs?

[tyoob]

Also note that nowhere in the suit does it say your DVDs will be replaced with the same DVDs. In fact, it specifically states that you can choose from a list. You're just going to get the movies they can't get rid of by any other means.

Here's the relevant portion:

"If the proposed settlement is approved by the Court, Class Members who submit timely and valid Claim Forms may exchange each Eligible DVD for (i) a new MGM DVD from a list of 325 titles or (ii) $7.10."

Re:"Entitled" to new DVDs?

[Alsee]

it seems to me that MGM is actually in the right here

Fradulently mislabeling products is "in the right"?

But I'm apparently "entitled" to...

The suit is not so much about your "entitlement" as about MGM's dis-entitlement to engage in fradulent business practices. This remedy is primarily to give them a swift kick in the ass to stop mislabeling products.

-

Re:"Entitled" to new DVDs?

[Deeze]

I really have the feeling that it was a boneheaded mistake rather than any malicious intent to mislead. I mean, really. What is gained by it when the information is included in a package that consists of both versions of the movie? (as several of the movies listed are/were sold that way)

Re:"Entitled" to new DVDs?

[Maestro4k]

• I really have the feeling that it was a boneheaded mistake rather than any malicious intent to mislead. I mean, really. What is gained by it when the information is included in a package that consists of both versions of the movie? (as several of the movies listed are/were sold that way)

I would agree, but in at least some cases MGM switched the copy from widescreen to full screen and didn't change the packaging or UPC. (Or vice versa on the switch.) That's beyond a simple goof, that's either being cheap and/or lazy ("oh we can't afford to change those packages, keep them as is" or "oh who cares, leave the packages as is, we can't be bothered to change them"), or willfull misleading.

Shiny star

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but you probably don't get one - due to your use of both "letter-boxing" (hyphenated) and "letterboxed" (no hyphen). The latter form is preferable, and although both forms are acceptable, mixing them isn't!

It just goes to show, you can't win when attempting to write grammatically perfect English!

Re:Shiny star

[erikvcl]

And the phrase "gramatically perfect English" [sic] is really an epithet and should be "gramatically-perfect English". Yes, English grammar is fun!

FREE COPY LICENCE

[cheekyboy]

This just prooves who the real thieves of ali baba are, and thus gives me an unlimited back licence to copy all their works.

Pond scum are my closer friends.

Lemme get this straight...

[Enry]

MGM is offering me $7.10 per DVD or a replacement from an as-yet-vaporware list of DVDs, which may or may not contain the DVD title I'm sending them.

How do I get anything out of this? Why should I send MGM my DVDs? Why should I fill this thing out at all? At least with the RIAA price fixing lawsuits I could keep the CDs I bought during that timeframe.

Re:A case of misunderstanding? Youbetcha.

[The-Bus]

Actually 1.33:1 (the "Academy Ratio") is literally full-frame on a regular TV. A 1.85:1 movie is only "full-frame" on widescreen TVs (16:9 as opposed to 4:3).

When a movie shot to be framed in 1.85:1 is full-frame on a TV it usually makes sense to have it be "open matte" or "unmatted" which means the entire 1.33:1 image of the film is shown. There's many DVDs of this type.

The "widest" movie I can think of off the top of my head is It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World which is 2.75:1.

There's also an interesting article from 1953 on the up-and-coming "CinemaScope" process.

Re:"Butchered movies"?? Educate yourself please.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was trade in for a new dvd, or get $7

Trading in for $7 doesn't seem right, especially since the dvd for dvd trade in will probably get you a dvd worth more than $7

silence of the lawyers...

[cheekyboy]

Now why arent there more movies where theres a serial killer that eats LAWYERS!!!!

Re:silence of the lawyers...

[DarkSarin]

Because even serial killers wouldn't touch that unsavory dish?

Re:silence of the lawyers...

[DevNova]

Professional courtesy.

Re:silence of the lawyers...

[LocutusMIT]

Jurassic Park?

I know a tyrannosaur isn't exactly a serial killer, but...

Ehh...

[Ayanami Rei]

It was always easier to have a theater's screen be 1.85 or thereabouts to balance the width of the theater and how high you had to tilt your head back to see. You want to try to get as many people in the room at once without making them crane their necks to see.

The 4:3 aspect ratio is still used in filming since the lenses are spherical and wider aspect ratios are difficult to keep in focus while simultaneously avoiding distortion. Plus nowadays all the equipment (monitors, editing stations, etc.) use 4:3 screens. Of course, there's always anamorphic lenses, but that's a more recent development, and not everyone uses them.

Re:Correct | CowboyNeal/Slashdot should update

[gordm]

I've just wasted a bit of time looking thru my DVD collection before spotting later posts (such as this one) which point out the films are really not "butchered".

Would be best if someone could update the original post to indicate these movies are not being trimmed on all 4 sides, and are "artistically accurate".
-g

Wow.

[jpellino]

Was this a techie discovery or did the people watching "Cyborg" "Rocky V" and "Hot Dog" just feel there was something missing?

I never noticed - and I've got Bull Durham, Spinal Tap, Wanda, Princess Bride, UHF, & Hollywood Shuffle (we almost busted a gut in Savannah last summer when we were served "Hoe Cakes" at Paula Deen's - never knew they were for real - not to mention the Cracker Pudding in Amish country...)

I'll get the replacements if they're fixed, if not - eh.

OK, I'll bite......

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

Some trolls deserve to be force fed. I'll even burn karma to do it....

Play the 80's aerobics music... Oooohh.. Feel the karma burn

1. You rejuvenate and dance when you hear a windows flaw exposed, but you conveniently ignore the thousands of security flaws exposed in linux.

Most of the script kiddies ignore Linux security flaws. It comes down to the amount of risk. It's riskier to put an unpatched windows machine on the net than an unpatched Linux box

2. You yell loudly TROLL! at any person's post or at any person you see posting facts that you do not want to hear about your oh so cool linux.

OK. A half point for you, but I'm also doing something about it.

3. You know it's a classic case of penis envy, you don't have all the support, software and hardware available for linux and you have to let that anger out somewhere, but you don't have the brains to admit it.

No, penis envy is more for case modding. Linux has all the windows hardware available for it. As for software, you can't count windows viruses and trojan screen savers as part of the software base. Those who choose to move to Linux understand what software base is available to them. The same software argument can applied to a Mac. Mac addicts will fight tooth and nail for their platform not caring a bit about the software base for windows.

4. You hate windows, hate Microsoft, but race to emulate windows, have programs to run office from within linux, and spend a $300 on a Windows emulator, only Windows fools.

I happily run OpenOffice. I haven't found a need to touch a windows emulator for anything. Plus, I don't hate windows. I'm actually a VB.NET programmer by trade. I'd just rather not use the stuff at home. If I were a 'sanitation engineer' for a living, I wouldn't bring home bags of garbage to play with.

5. You cannot admit that you don't have professional usage of Linux outside server markets.

Moot point. 21st century. It's all going client/server. Even microsoft stuff. Unix/Linux was just there first.

6. You cannot admit that most of the joe user out there when told that there is linux will respond, what is that?

Most of the 'Joe Users' out there that would respond that way also don't even know what a trojan or virus is and couldn't care less. Worry about your clueless windows users first.

7. You cannot admit that there is no professional printing capabilities in linux.

If I were running a professional print house, I'd probably be using a Mac.

8. You cannot admit that you are a masochist (otherwise why would someone spend hours playing with scripts,
and recompiling programs that are available for Windows?)

Classic uninformed troll. What's was the last Linux distribution you even looked at? RedHat 3.0? Installations have grown up a lot since then.

9. You cannot admit that there is no professional desktop publishing done on Linux.

See my Mac reference

10. You cannot admit that no one in their right mind would do professional video editing in Linux.

Make sure you understand that you typed 'professional' video editing. I would use Linux. Have you seen Cinelerra? Even Pixar and ILM use Linux for their render farms. A clueless newbie wanting home video editing would probably do better with iMovie on a Mac. Pinnacle and ULead products crash and hang too often in windows.

12. You have problems in understanding Windows, and you will blame your own incompetence on Microsoft.

If windows is so easy, why are there people switching to an OS that's harder to use, as you imply. Linux users have courage and are self-confident.

13. You have problems in pointing a clicking, but have no problems in wading through cryptic scripts written by lunatics.

Even Einstein couldn't tie his shoes. So I'll take this statement as a compliment to my intelligence.

Why ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does someone know why they did this ??

- only have access to P&S masters (lol)
- dvd authors @ mgm are retards
- done on purpose to spoil customers and re-reliz a 'true WS' version

hoping to clear up confusion

[hymie!]

The picture at http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matted.shtml demonstrates exactly what is wrong with my copy of Spaceballs (which is on the "defective" list). The picture is the width of the blue box and the height of the red box, with black bars at the top and bottom.

I honestly don't understand the cinematography, but calling the DVD "widescreen" was definitely misleading at a minimum.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

excellent visual evidence of cheating by the studios

ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read.

[Deeze]

I'm posting this where hopefully, it will be seen. Please read, and understand what is being said in alot of comments before you do something like send your DVD's in. The /. article is in ERROR about the movies being twice cropped. The case is about the fact that MGM have misleading information about the way the full frame versions are created. MGM says they are using a pan and scan method which loses information on the sides due to being cropped, while the fact of the matter is the movies were shot open frame, which makes the width of both versions the same. Understand that this does not mean the widescreen movies are butchered. They are not. Can somebody please, please do an editorial edit of the article above so that it is not as terribly misleading as it is right now.

Re:ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read.

[|/|/|||]

This makes a lot of sense, as a pan and scan version that was chopped down seems like it would be pretty obvious.

Too bad my copy of spaceballs is on loan right now, or I would check it out - I don't think I've ever played the "fullscreen" side of the disc...

Re:ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read.

[Rick the Red]

this does not mean the widescreen movies are butchered. They are not.

That depends on what you mean by "butchered". I buy the widescreen version so that I can see the entire film as it was originally shot. These so-called "widescreen" DVDs give us LESS than the entire film. In the case of these movies, the "fullscreen" version gives you the whole movie, the "widescreen" version gives you less than the whole movie. That's butchered, in my opinion.

Re:ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read.

[mmclure]

So you like seeing microphone booms and such that were masked off the original negatives because the director composed the shot for widescreen, not fullscreen? See Matted Widescreen for examples.

Re:ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the time when the movie is filmed in open frame, they intend to mat it out later to a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. one of the best examples of this is Back To The Future. They shot it in open frame (fullscreen), and later cropped it to 1.85:1 for the theatrical release. Normally they do this so they have some leeway when they go in the editing room to figure out how they want it framed exactly. And also, they can eliminate errors this way too. In Back to the Future III, if you look at the full screen version of it, in one shot you can see one of the crewmembers hands in the way. In the widescreen version, this has been cropped out. In these cases when it is shot in open frame and cropped later, the cropped widescreen version is the way the director intended it to be seen.

Re:ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read.

[Anonymous Coward]

So how are the new DVDs they are sending as replacements going to be different?

Re:ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read.

[Rick the Red]

Yellow Submarine is on the list. Are you trying to tell me the director told the animators to draw a 4:3 ratio movie so he could crop it top and bottom to look widescreen? NOBODY draws an animated cartoon like that. Lots of cartoons were cropped to make them look "widescreen" but the director never intended them to be shown cropped, and I don't see why MGM should get away with selling them that way.

If the director composed the shot for widescreen, why didn't they film it that way? If they're simply cheap (which MGM is), then I can certainly understand them using the original, non-cropped 4:3 version for DVD release, since it's cheaper than doing a proper pan-and-scan on the widescreen version. I understand it, but I don't like it. And for them to say this version is "Modified to fit your screen" is a lie.

Re:ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read.

[AudioEfex]

Rick the Red said : "That depends on what you mean by 'butchered'. I buy the widescreen version so that I can see the entire film as it was originally shot." Ah, but do you realize that the way the film was originally shot (as in, the film captured on the day of shooting) is different from what the director intended you to see on the day the film opens in a theater? I'm not talking about FX post-production or anything like that, but the fact that most films are shot "open frame" capturing much more on the top and sides than the director intends on the final product. Directors take advantage of this frequently now because they don't want their films butchered in pan/scan (an early example given is often Cameron's Aliens). Since they generally weren't given control of that process, they adjust the process they can and shoot (and do post on) the full frame just so their film doesn't get butchered in pan/scan on home video, yet they shoot for a certain widescreen ratio as intended to be shown in theaters. That's what it comes down to - do you want to see what the director intended you to see in the theater, or do you want to see the "failsafe" print they made to ensure that someone else doesn't fuck up their film later? If you are someone who wants the latter, then most widescreen DVDs you buy aren't what you are looking for because virtually all of the films in the past 20 years are going to be affected like this. AE

Re:ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read.

[Aractus]

Dude, they ARE modified to fit a 4:3 screen because: 1. the stock isn't 1.33:1, it's 1.66:1, and 2. it isn't the original ratio.

Re:ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read.

[Fortran IV]

Thank you for the clarification! The Matted Widescreen link above happened to point to something I could check for myself: John Cleese' nude scene in A Fish Called Wanda. My DVD is FS/WS double-sided, and I've compared the shots; sure enough, in the FS version you see him wearing a pair of shorts. I saw Wanda in the theater and I'm sure I'd have noticed such an obvious editing gaffe, so indeed the "butchered" version appears to be more true to the theatrical release.

Open frame filming would also explain a peculiarity I've noticed in my FS/WS copy of The Fifth Element (Columbia/Tristar, not MGM). The FS version has definitely been trimmed on the sides, but in at least some shots, the FS frame is noticeably taller than the WS frame. Apparently in creating the FS version, the studio picked shots in which they could maintain more of the original width by adding cropped areas from the full frame. Notably, I've not found any of these expanded FS frames in effects shots, only in relatively effects-free interior shots.

On the other hand, what happened to Terminator 3 (Warner)? I don't have a FS version, but my WS DVD seems to have less picture top-and-bottom than I saw in the theater. For instance, near the beginning when John Connor drops a beer bottle off a bridge, the bottle bounces off something out of frame before falling in the water. It looks distinctly peculiar, and I don't remember such a distracting moment in the theater. Can somebody check if their FS version shows a girder or something (not that that would prove anything)?

Re:ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read.

[neurojab]

The article is also wrong in that it says a settlement has been reached. This isn't true either, a settlement has been proposed.

Also the text of the claim itself doesn't make a lot of sense.

Basically it says that "widescreen DVDs shot in 1 to 1.85 aspect ratio have the same image width as MGM's standard format DVDs."

The only way this claim could have any merit at all is if the packaging claimed an anamorphic transfer, and the transfer was not in fact anamorphic. Does anyone know if this is the case? I don't have the DVDs in question to check it out.

Re:ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read.

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is true, then why is the Ghost World DVD included among the bad DVD's? Ghost World only comes in windescreen and there is no "Pan & Scan". The original post was right!

Re:ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read.

[neurojab]

If this is true, then why is the Ghost World DVD included among the bad DVD's? Ghost World only comes in windescreen and there is no "Pan & Scan". The original post was right!

I don't know anything about Ghost World. I just read the claim, and that's what it said.

What exactly are you trying to say? That Ghost World really is a bad transfer? Or that Ghost World really is anamorphic? Does it say so on the box? Help me out here.

Re:ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read.

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG fucking use the return key next time.

KTHXBYE.

Re:ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read.

[Blondie-Wan]

Yellow Submarine is on the list. Are you trying to tell me the director told the animators to draw a 4:3 ratio movie so he could crop it top and bottom to look widescreen? NOBODY draws an animated cartoon like that. Lots of cartoons were cropped to make them look "widescreen" but the director never intended them to be shown cropped, and I don't see why MGM should get away with selling them that way.

Actually, yes, even cartoons. I can still remember how, when I saw Ferngully: The Last Rainforest theatrically when it first came out, the projectionist had slightly misframed the film, and during some scenes the upper edges of the animation cels and the like could be seen. There were plenty of shots where the artwork extended all the way to the edge, but others where the ink and paint of a character meant to fill the frame from top to bottom didn't quite extend all the way to the top, others where the actual physical edge of the cel was visible, etc.

It's not anything to do with "drawing a 4:3 ratio movie." There are shots for which planned camera movements, for example, mean a background painting is painted with different dimensions than an individual frame (because it's meant for camera to pan across, etc.), or for which the registration of the animation artwork might have changed since it was originally conceived, or for which the animators simply might have drawn a bit more around the edges than was necessary for the cameras.

Re:ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read.

[Blondie-Wan]

Another example can be seen with Y Tu mamá también (which is on the list of "affected" titles). If you watch the online QuickTime version of the trailer (opens in iTunes), you see that it's full-frame, 1.33:1. You also see two shots in which there's a sheet of material in front of and above the camera, hanging down into the frame near the top of the picture, to block glare from the sun (which would otherwise show up everywhere else on the image). The shots can be seen at the 1:09" mark (when Tenoch is kicking the car after it's started to pull away from him at the service station; the masking material runs across the upper left of the frame) and three shots later, at 1:13" (when the car is zipping through the countryside; the masking can be seen in the upper-right corner). On the DVD, though, the same trailer and the actual movie are presented at 1.85:1, and the masking cannot be seen in either shot.

Things like this masking, film equipment, actors' marks and the like are just the most obvious problems, though. Often, even if all the "extra" picture on the original camera negative is devoid of such stuff, it still can throw off the original photographic composition that the director and cinematographer intended. Filmmakers (good ones, anyway) carefully plan their framing to achieve desired looks, and introducing huge swaths of negative space that wasn't meant to be seen can wreck their visuals almost as badly as arbitrarily cutting off the sides with panning-and-scanning to fit TVs.

Re:ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read.

[Jivecat]

That Matted Widescreen page explains what you're seeing with The Fifth Element. To quote: "Only live-action scenes in Super35 movies have the mattes removed. Super35 scenes with special effects are hard-matted at 2.35:1 and must undergo the pan-and-scan process to fit the screen."

Re:ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't confuse the term anamorphic in conjuction with film and with DVD. All it means is that the image is squshed sidewasy. An anamorphic widescreen DVD uses the 720x480 image to create a widescreen image as opposed to a full screen image Where a full screen dvd uses the 720x480 to create a full screen image. There are DVD's out there that are letterboxed full screen and don't use the anamorphic encoding. Any movie that is widescreen can be an anamorphic dvd. The source does not need to be anamorphic. It's the same term but used to describe two different proceedures. With film it describes how it is shot and projected. With dvd's it describes how it is encoded. It is the same concept and idea, but at different stages of bringing us entertainment.

What the director intended you to see.

[schon]

If the director didn't intend for me to see something, it wouldn't have ended up on film.

That's the whole point - the 4:3 have "extra" stuff (at the top and bottom) that *DIDN'T* appear in the theatrical screening, because it was matted out. The director *DID NOT* intend for you to see it, and yet it was *STILL* part of the film.

As an example, check out this. Are you suggesting that the director intended you to see the boom mike in Princess Bride, or that he intented you to see that John Cleese had pants on?

Please do some reading on the subject.

Re:What the director intended you to see.

[Robmonster]

If I had mod points, you'd get them!

Re:What the director intended you to see.

[budgenator]

not quite right your link also says

(Note: Only live-action scenes in Super35 movies have the mattes removed. Super35 scenes with special effects are hard-matted at 2.35:1 and must undergo the pan-and-scan process to fit the screen, thus resulting in a loss of about 45% of the original image.)

Personaly I've always prefered the widescreen 16:9, but from what I've seem my argurment from widescreen are invalid because both are cropped from the production full apature format. when special effect are added the fx are shot in 16:9 widescreen and additionaly cropped to get the 4:3 tv fullscreen format. For a better explaination see for details.

Re:What the director intended you to see.

[kenthorvath]

I doubt that very much considering that in the widescreen format of Spaceballs, the princess's nose is cut off at a dramatic moment. I can't imagine them having left that out of the theatrical release - it wouldn't make any sense. But lo! and behold! it is in the full screen version. It really aggrevated me, and I've been wondering if there was a problem with my DVD player, but now it all makes sense.

Re:What the director intended you to see.

[chowbok]

My favorite example of this is from the full-screen version of Repo Man--at one point an angry ska band is supposed to be beating and kicking a prostrate Emilio Estevez, who would be just below the frame. In the TV version, you can see that they're kicking a bag of sand.

Re:The point of a movie is its script.

[Anonymous Coward]

you're an idiot. if the point of a movie was the script, then they'd be books.

MGM got nuked... Time for -PROPER-

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

where has the world come to, when even the movie companies have to do PROPER releases of their DVDs...

SCNR

Re:Correct (NOT correct!)

[nodrogluap]

I must disagree. All regular movies are filmed onto 1.33:1 35mm film. But the original negative contains data for a 1.85:1 ratio (via use of a panoramic lense, e.g. "filmed in panavision"). The Open Matte method is for theatrically 'widescreening' negatives filmed in the unadulterated 1.33:1 format.

Given the DVD image shown on the cover, the original film has an actual 1.85:1 display ratio, not a matted 1.33:1. This film would have been displayed at theatres using a scope lens (looking at the negative itself it would appear squished horizontally, the scope lens reverses the panoramic filming lens's effect).

Elektra? The Aviator?

[sosiosh]

Did you look at the list??? I scanned it quickly, and noticed that Elektra and The Aviator are on there... and there's probably more films currently in theatrical release. They wouldn't be fishing for pirates, would they?

Re:Elektra? The Aviator?

[CatMan79]

MGM's The Aviator is the old version starring the late Christopher Reeves.

Re:Elektra? The Aviator?

[Augie De Blieck Jr.]

ELECTRA is listed, NOT the current Garner vehicle, "Elektra." Completely different movie. IMDB.com will have all the info for you.

Re:"Butchered movies"?? Educate yourself please.

[Deeze]

The /. article is in error, the movies are not.

Summation

[AdolChristin]

Let me try to sum this up in a way that makes sense to myself and the cinema afficianados here at Slashdot can tell me if i understand this correctly. What we've got here are moves that were filmed in 1.33:1 but framed for 1.85:1. That means, technically, when the movie went to the theater information was lost. However, it was always intended for this information to be lost as it is not useful information (booms, props, etc). The lawsuit arose when MGM said that these films contain more information than the widescreen formats, which, in this case is technically not true. I am no cinema buff, my only question is this: Is my copy of Bill and Ted's Excellent adventure being presented to me in the ratio in which the director intended it to be presented?

A filmmaker's perspective

[robyannetta]

This is just one of many problems with letting big business control the filmmaker's creativity.

Personally, I do not use large corporations like MGM for distribution, it gives them too much control of my productions. I distribute them myself.

The only one instance of the filmmaker getting his way was Welles' Citizen Kane. The studio hated it, but they never got to touch a frame. Ted Turner couldn't even touch it.

Re:A filmmaker's perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

"Personally, I do not use large corporations like MGM for distribution, it gives them too much control of my productions. I distribute them myself."
Psha. As if MGM would bother putting out your low-quality porn flicks anyhow...

Re:A filmmaker's perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll have you know that his porn flicks are QUITE high-quality.

UHF

[David_Bloom]

The list (PDF) of butchered movies includes almost every Woody Allen film, Silence of the Lambs, and Ghost World, just to name a few.

Fuck that, UHF is on there!!! This is completely unacceptable.

Re:UHF

[jonhartman84]

I think that movie came out after the date that they stopped doing this, that way that have the dvd's junked up if they are. All this fighting I can't figure out witch end the head and which end the butt is.

Re:A case of misunderstanding? Youbetcha.

[X_Bones]

Ooh. Apparently I'm a clueless moron because I don't know the difference between anamorphic, non-anamorphic, widescreen, pan-and-scan, full-frame, and whatever else. Guess what? I don't give a shit about any of it. I'm not a filmmaker, I'm not a movie critic, I don't have a hard-on for every $3000 piece of home theater equipment I read about in a magazine. I just like to sit down with friends, have a beer, and watch movies once in a while.

Don't understand the strategic difference between the bombings of Dresden, Peenemunde, and Ploetsi by the RAF and USAAF during World War Two? You're obviously clueless. Can you see how stupid both of these comparisons are?

And your reference to Windows and IE, although meant to be humorous, actually shows how disingenuous you are. Does me sitting at home watching a pan-and-scan version of a movie somehow decrease your enjoyment of watching a different version in your own home (as would be the case, say, with you accessing the internet on Linux and me on an pwn'd spam zombie Windows box)? No? Then shut up and stop making stupid assumptions.

Wereposts Of London

[DLWormwood]

were were were

Ugh. That should be "where". That's what I get for copy/pasting quote text...

Re:Wereposts Of London

[Lifereaper0]

I'm guilty of not using "where" as well. Ahhh Misties the greatest show ever!

Where's the "Proof of claim" form??

[amigabill]

OK, they have a list of fraudulent DVDs they sold. They have a form you can fill out to exclude yourself from the lawsuit. They say you can pick a replacement DVD from a list, but I don't see that list, only the broken DVDs list. They also say that to claim anything, you need to fill out a "Proof of claim" form, but I couldn't find that on the web site...

So, if one were to file a claim, how would one do it??

Where are the actors and directors crying here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are the actors/directors not crying here about how MGM altered their films.

I remember them doing this when a video rental chain was editing out offensive language.

Re:Like the "panoramic camera" swindle of the 1990

[LordNimon]

About the panoramic thing, I understand your point, but how much would it have cost to have the non-panoramic print blown up to the same width as the regular print? If a regular print is 4x6 and a panoramic print is 4x10, then you would need to make the regular print almost 7x10 for it to be the same width. A single 4x6 costs about 30 cents, but an 8x10 usually costs ten times as much! Panoramic prints aren't anywhere near as expensive, so it's really just a matter of cost.

am I the only one with a clipboard?

[sootman]

Rather than pad lines to avoid the lameness filter I'm posting this with newlines but as HTML. To see a nice list, view the source.

Mgm Class Action Settlement Eligible Dvd List: 10 To Midnight --- 1969 --- 1984 --- 24 Hour Party People --- 3 Strikes --- 8 Heads In A Duffel Bag --- Abominable Dr. Phibes, The --- Across 110th Street --- Alice --- Alice's Restaurant --- All Dogs Go To Heaven --- All Dogs Go To Heaven 2 --- All Or Nothing --- Alphabet City --- Amazing Grace --- American Buffalo --- American Ninja --- American Ninja 2 & 3 --- Amityville Horror, The --- Amos & Andrew --- Angel Levine, The --- Angel Unchained/Cycle Savages --- Angels And Insects --- Annie Hall --- Another Woman --- Assassination --- At First Sight --- At First Sight/Kill Me Again --- At The Earth's Core --- Attic, The/Crawl Space --- Audrey Rose --- Autumn In New York --- Avanti! --- Aviator, The --- Babette's Feast --- Baby Boom --- Back To School --- Bad Influence --- Bagdad Café --- Bananas --- Bar Girls --- Barbershop --- Basic Training --- Basket, The --- Beat Street --- Believers, The --- Benny And Joon --- Bent --- Best Seller --- Bill And Ted's Bogus Journey --- Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure --- Billion Dollar Hobo, The --- Biodome --- Birdcage, The --- Birdman Of Alcatraz --- Black Caesar --- Black Mama, White Mama --- Black Robe --- Black Stallion 1 & 2, The --- Black Stallion Returns, The --- Black Stallion, The --- Blue Sky --- Blue Steel --- Body Of Evidence --- Born Romantic --- Bound For Glory --- Boxcar Bertha --- Boxing Helena --- Breaker! Breaker! --- Breakheart Pass --- Breakin' --- Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo --- Breaking In --- Breathless --- Breathless/Red Corner --- Breeders --- Bride Wore Black, The --- Bright Lights, Big City --- Broadway Danny Rose --- Bucktown --- Bull Durham --- Business Of Strangers --- Cadillac Man --- Camille Claudel --- Candyman 2: Farewell To The Flesh --- Carrie - 25th Anniversary --- Carrington --- Catch The Heat --- Caveman --- Charles Bronson --- Chato's Land --- Cheech And Chong Corsican Bros --- Cherry 2000 --- Children's Hour --- Child's Play --- Chocolate --- Choose Me --- Christina's House --- City Of Industry --- City Slickers --- Class --- Class/Youngblood --- Clean Slate --- Coca Cola Kid, The --- Code Of Silence --- Coffy --- Colors --- Coming Home --- Company Business --- Cooley High --- Cornbread, Earl, And Me --- Cotton Club --- Cotton Comes To Harlem --- Couch Trip --- Count Yorga, Vampire --- Courage Mountain --- Cq --- Crime And Punishment In Suburbia --- Crimes And Misdemeanors --- Crybanshee/Murdersruemorgue --- Cuba --- Cutters Way --- Cutting Edge, The --- Cyborg --- Dark Half, The --- De Sade --- Dead Man Walking --- Dead Of Winter --- Death Warrant --- Decameron, The --- Defiant Ones --- Delirious --- Delta Force --- Delta Force Ii --- Deranged/Motel Hell --- Desert Hearts --- Desperate Hours --- Desperately Seeking Susan --- Diggstown --- Dillinger --- Dirty Rotten Scoundrels --- Dirty Work --- Disturbing Behavior --- Dogs Of War, The --- Doll's House --- Dominick And Eugene --- Donovan's Brain --- Double Impact --- Dr. No --- Dr. Phibes Rises Again --- Duel At Diablo --- Dunwich Horror, The --- Easy Money --- Eat, Drink, Man, Woman --- Echo Park --- Eddie And The Cruisers --- Edge Of Sanity --- Eight Men Out --- Electra --- Elmer Gantry --- Empire Of The Ants --- End, The --- Entertainer, The --- Equus --- Europa Europa --- Eve Of Destruction --- Everything You Always Wanted --- Extreme Adventures Of Super Dave --- Extremities --- Eye For An Eye --- Eye Of The Needle --- Falcon And The Snowman, The --- Fatal Beauty --- Fatal Instinct --- Favor, The --- Fellini's Roma --- Fires Within --- First Power, The --- Fish Called Wanda, A --- Five On The Black Hand Side --- Flam

Re:Like the "panoramic camera" swindle of the 1990

[srs5694]

Actually, there are a few panoramic cameras that work just as you say -- using a wider-than-normal strip of negative for the image. For instance, there's a line of cameras from Russia called the Horizon. Check http://www.rugift.com/ for one international retailer that sells them. (I don't own one of these cameras myself, though.) I believe there are a couple other brands, too. Most or all APS cameras with "panoramic" options just crop standard-sized negatives, though.

Is this too good to be true?

[vashathastampedo]

It would appear to me that many of these titles could be found for less than the $7.10 - places such as bargin bins and/or used DVD stores. What's to stop someone from going around and collecting these things for a small profit?

Re:Correct (NOT correct!)

[Sc00ter]

Did you even look at the link you sent.

Here's the pic from the very link you sent of the widescreen version:

http://dvdmedia.ign.com/media/reviews/image/prince ssbridejogws.jpg

Here it is from the full screen version:

http://dvdmedia.ign.com/media/reviews/image/prince ssbridejogps.jpg

Here is the description from the very site you posted:

"The packaging leads you to believe that you are getting a 'widescreen' edition (non-anamorphic) on one side that gives you more than the other side:

But after investigating both sides, it was quickly apparent that side two was an open matte version of the widescreen. And in case there is any doubt, here is the frame used in the packaging:

I believe Miracle Max's wife said it best: "LIAAAAAR!!!! LIAR!!!"

So, you will get more picture if you choose the 'Standard' side (as the packaging defines it). But I must say the video is much better-looking on the widescreen side. The colors are richer and more defined, whereas the 'standard' version is much more muted."

Matted animated titles?

[HTH NE1]

The explanation that it is only that these widescreen versions are simply matted 4:3 versions as seen in theaters and weren't disclosed as such doesn't entirely explain why the animated movie "The Secret of NIMH" is on the list.

Re:Matted animated titles?

[Deeze]

The reason any title is on the list is because it has misleading documentation packaged with it.

Regarding what they are

[srs5694]

Several people have asked whether MGM has applied open matte to something that was originally filmed in 4:3 or to something filmed wider that was pan-and-scanned. I've checked my copy of "A Fish Called Wanda," and done a bit of a Web search, and I believe that this one, at least, was filmed in 4:3 and matted properly for the DVD's wide-screen side. (This DVD has both versions on one disc.) Specifically, a Google search turned up several sites that use "A Fish Called Wanda" as an example of the perils of open matting:

http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matted.shtml

http://www.rexer.com/cine/oar.htm

Checking my DVD for the scene that's used as an example on these sites, I see that both the "widescreen" and "full-screen" sides show what the Web sites say they should show. In other words, the DVD of "A Fish Called Wanda" does not seem to be matting of a pan-and-scan version. I have no cause for complaint on this one.

Of course, this says nothing about the other titles. "A Fish Called Wanda" happens to be the only one I own from that list.

irony?

[Anonymous Coward]

I set my preferences to remove karma posting bonuses, which helps a bit,

Then why did you use your +1 karma bonus to post this comment?

Re:irony?

[Coryoth]

Slashdot has preferences, and they are helpful. I can't be bothered reading everything from people with high Karma (because there's a lot of them these days), but some people will. If they don't want to read this they can:

(1) Set their threshold to +3
(2) Make me a foe, and give foes a -1
(3) Set the Karma posting bonus to +0

If they're anonymous cowards... they get whatever they're fed, and that's not my problem.

Jedidiah.

Replacement list?

[gte910h]

Anyone managed to find the replacement list for the DVD's? It says you can switch your copies for other movies

Re:Like the "panoramic camera" swindle of the 1990

[Anonymous Coward]

The Hassleblad/Fuji X-Pan is probably the best of these. It is really cool because you can flip between the usual 2:3 and panoramic aspect ratios between photos and it moves the film with the motor to compensate!

Blockbuster / Hollywood video

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that blockbuster / hollywood video and other major buyers of these dvds return them in masse for $7 for each dvd.

That would allow the stores to get a huge amount of money back on dvds that are never rented.

Re:Blockbuster / Hollywood video

[holt]

Blockbuster is one of the defendants of the lawsuit. In addition, the terms clearly state that the movies must have been purchased for personal use, not for resale.

Pixar

[tgibbs]

Pixar actually renders the widescreen and fullscreen versions separately, with the scenes recomposed appropriately.

Re:Pixar

[bill_mcgonigle]

with the scenes recomposed appropriately.

Does that mean they have an artist redo the object locations, action, and camera moves? Or maybe they just give different camera parameters?

Re:Pixar

[tgibbs]

Does that mean they have an artist redo the object locations, action, and camera moves? Or maybe they just give different camera parameters?

It sounds like they do all of the above to some extent.

Re:Pixar

[Teddy Beartuzzi]

God, I wish people would quit stating this so absolutely.

Pixar very clearly states in their examples of how they do this that re-compositing is a *small* part of what they do. They specifically mention four techniques they use to create the full frame version (Bug's Life re-compositing feature):

1. Re-stage (Moving characters closer, what most folks mean when they say re-compositing)
2. Frame-height (Add background picture to top and bottom. Essentially, animated open-matte)
3. Crop (Removing the sides)
4. Scan (The 4:3 picture box moves left and right in the widescreen frame)

There's this silly myth that's grown that when you watch a Pixar re-composited film, you don't miss anything, as every single scene is re-done. It simply isn't true at all. When you actually compare, you'll see that the majority of the films are done using the lossy techniques of Crop and Scan. There's the ocassional re-staging, when the other techniques don't work well.

Yes, it's a bit better than pan-and-scanning the entire film. But it's still butchered. It's just butchered slightly less.

Re:Pixar

[tgibbs]

Yes, it's a bit better than pan-and-scanning the entire film. But it's still butchered. It's just butchered slightly less.

I don't consider it to be "butchered" when a film is specifically adapted scene by scene to another aspect ratio by its creators. That doesn't mean that every scene has to be recomposited. One aspect ratio is not inherently better than another. Some scenes will inherently work better in 4:3 (and sometimes simply cropping the sides will improve the composition or at least not harm it) and some will inherently work better in 16:9.

Re:Pixar

[Techster]

Technically, it's half-true. Finding Nemo's full screen version was reframed for standard TVs, including repositioning key objects for the scene so they would not be left out. This is even stated on the back of the DVD case.

IIRC, it was stated somewhere that Pixar plans on doing this with all their future DVDs as well, though I can't find the link for the source anymore.

Re:Pixar

[Teddy Beartuzzi]

The majority of the film is still pan and scanned. The involvement of the creators is meaningless. The creators are involved when creating the fullscreen version of Spiderman, it doesn't change the fact the fullscreen film is not what was originally shown in the theatre, and is not what they wanted viewers to see.

There is not a single frame in a Pixar re-composited film that matches the creator's vision. It's still a hack job on a film, the only difference is that re-compositing allows a slightly finer tuning. Higher precision, if you will.

It's akin to hacking your leg off with an axe, or a scalpel.

Re:Pixar

[tgibbs]

There is not a single frame in a Pixar re-composited film that matches the creator's vision. It's still a hack job on a film, the only difference is that re-compositing allows a slightly finer tuning. Higher precision, if you will.

Who but the creator is to say what his "vision" was? Whatever he might prefer for a particular scene, he is constrained to work within the limitations of the aspect ratio of the medium. For all we know, there might be scenes that the creators would have preferred to do in 4:3, but were forced into widescreen by the demands of film production.

Re:Pixar

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what you'd think of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. It was actually filmed twice, resulting in two versions of the film, with 1.85:1 and 2.55:1 aspect ratios.

In this case, (having seen the movie) I think that neither of these could be called a hack job. I presume that the director preferred the Cinemascope version... but everyone involved worked hard on both versions, and they are both excellent.

I think it's totally conceivable that, whether by luck or design, one could often get almost as good results without having to shoot the film twice.

Of course, it depends on the particular characteristics of the film in question. It also requires some skill and attention to detail in the conversion. But the overall result can still be approximately as good as the original, without even considering how much better the new film may match the display device being used.

Some scenes may suffer, but some scenes may be improved. Re-composition is not universally bad.

Re:Like the "panoramic camera" swindle of the 1990

[The I Shing]

Oh, no, please, don't get me started on this whole thing!

The store that I worked at decided to hop on the panoramic bandwagon by offering to print the "panoramic" pictures in-house. The way they did that was to use the color enlarging printer to make an 8x12 of each photo and then use a paper-trimmer to chop off the blackness on the top and bottom!

And here's the kicker... they would charge a lot less for a one of these "panoramic" prints than they would charge for a regular 8x12, even though it was actually much more work to print the "panoramic" shots. Not only was it a hassle to trim the print, but the large blank areas on the top and bottom of the shot would throw off the automatic negative density sensor to a degree that meant making adjustments to the machine when printing... a hassle.

Essentially, people who were paying full price for enlargements were subsidizing the people who had fallen for the "panoramic" crap.

It was just a huge, stupid hornswaggle on the photographically illiterate American public. The camera industry and its photofinishing allies were telling people "Look, bigger pictures!" when, in fact, the reality was, "Look, cropped enlargements!"

MGM is guilty, then, of much the same thing. They're saying, "Look, letterboxing!" when, in fact, the reality is, "Look, masked pan-and-scan!"

Not Breakin' 2 : Electric Boogaloo!

[CptTripps]

I'm outraged that they would do such a thing to such a film.

Re:Like the "panoramic camera" swindle of the 1990

[The I Shing]

I disagree on that point. The director is composing the scenes to fit within that wide-screen format, and then MGM was recomposing the scenes and then re-cropping them.

I use iPhoto to manage my digital photo collection, and I often crop my images creatively before either printing them or sending them to people. But if someone takes a portion of one of my images, that's not the image as I see it, but a reinterpretation of it.

If I take a photo of Ronald Reagan and Frank Sinatra standing next to each other, and crop out Frank Sinatra, that's quite a different photo, one that won't make the same impression as the original. I had a point with this but now I've forgotten it.

Nope, for once its not that bad!

[celerityfm]

As another poster said

"no, you can't use this lawsuit to replace your 'faulty' MGM discs with 'correct' ones; you've already got correctly framed discs. All that MGM have done wrong is be misleading by oversimplifying their explanation of the 'widescreen' process in their booklets. If they'd just left the consumer confused, like every other DVD manufacturer, then this would never have happened."

It turns out that things are not as they seem and getting paid $7 per eligble DVD is actually a pretty good deal for consumers after all!

Now here's where my comment gets informative-- $5k-$7.5k compensation for named plaintiffs is very appropriate-- speaking from personal experience, named plaintiffs have to WORK their ASS off helping the case along-- the money isn't an award so much as it is compensation for lost time, wages and expenses for the named plaintiffs to assist on the case. Believe me, you don't want to be a named plaintiff unless your personal convictions about the case are very high and all you care about is fixing the problem, not the money, because in the end you'll probably actually end up with less.

Now as far as attorney's fees are concerned, $2.7m isn't extreme or inappropriate considering that they originally filed the complaint in 2002! They've been at this for several years already! Not to mention the fact that you just don't go to court right away, there was probably a year or more of work before they ever got to the point of filing the complaint in the first place!

And believe me, MGM is really the one we should be complaining about here regarding those fees-- I'm certain that MGM had a chance to settle well before going to court, and at THAT time the attorneys fees were probably nowheres NEAR as high. MGM chose to play ball, and they lost-- and probably spent millions on their own defending the suit, but we don't hear anyone complaining about them wasting money defending their own wrongdoing at the expense of DVD prices everywhere? Then again, they do have the right to do it and they should continue to exercise that right.

The real thing we should be concentrating on here is the # of eligble DVDs that are claimed * $7.10. Thats the punishment that MGM has to bear and thats the figure that really matters in the end.

On a side note, I don't really see any wrongdoing here where MGM included these pamphlets with these DVDS about widescreen having more information-- because they probably included those pamphlets with ALL their wide screen dvds-- ie it was an accident. Where the wrongdoing occured, however, was where MGM was confronted with the problem and apparently didn't do anything to fix the problem-- they could have easily just issued a recall or a press release or an ad or something correcting the mistake and called it a day. Fighting this for 3 years in court just does not compute. They deserved what they got.

Disclaimer: I work for a plaintiff's consumer class action law firm but IANAL.

thanks for the reminders

[microcars]

Its difficult for people to comprehend that a film can be shot and then matted down for "widescreen" use.

"Back in the day..." I had seen Eraserhead more than a few times and I remember the day I saw it WITHOUT the matting in place in the projector (I think it was the Music Box theater in Chicago...)

Now that the film was being projected without the matting in place I could see all sorts of stuff at the Top and Bottom of the frame that was normally "hidden".

Stuff like LIGHTS, CABLES, it was really rather bizarre.

Re:Correct (NOT correct! really!)

[nodrogluap]

Yes, I looked at the pictures. I worked in a commercial projection booth, and am trying to provide insight. Did you look at this picture from the same article?

http://dvdmedia.ign.com/media/reviews/image/packag e.jpg

I will repeat: Open Matte is ONLY used to crop the top and bottom of 1.33:1 UNADULTERATED 35mm. This movie was obviously filmed with an anamorphic lens (since the full image above is 1.85:1), then pan-and-scanned for the full screen version. The widescreen version should contain more picture than the full screen version. At the theatre this movie would NOT have been matted, but rather a scope lens would have been used.

MGM ripped people off for those movies that were filmed with an anamorphic lens, because they did not get a theatre experience, but rather a cropped pan-and-scan.

I will grant you, the text of the article I pointed to is incorrect, which may mislead you. He says "it was quickly apparent that side two was an open matte version of the widescreen". He should have said "it was quickly apparent that side two was an open matte version of the FULLSCREEN". And that full screen is without a doubt a pan-and-scan, because the movie was filmed and displayed with anamorphic lenses.

Re:Correct | CowboyNeal/Slashdot should update

[HTH NE1]

I wouldn't be so quick on that. One movie on the list, "The Secret of NIMH", seems to have only been released as full screen.

My copy is full screen, and I'm usually very careful to buy only widescreen movies. I'll have to check the packaging again to see if it ever disclosed that it was full screen.

Re:Correct (NOT correct! really!)

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the only problem there is that these movies are not advertised as an anamorphic transfer, therefore should not be "found guilty" of not being anamorphic.

That'a a business modell

[NoSuchGuy]

It's an approved business modell.

You have to buy the
1) first release of a DVD,
2) extended version of a DVD
3) Collectors Edition
4) Directors Cut Edition
5) corrected aspect ratio from all of the above
6) repeat 1-6

BTW:
If you already own the DVD you should be allowed to download the iso from the internet.

Re:That'a a business modell

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot:

7. ????
8. Profit!

Re:Correct (NOT correct! really!)

[nodrogluap]

Sorry, please replace Open Matte with Matted in my previous posts! The widescreens are MATTED pan-and-scan fullscreens for MGM's anamorphically filmed movies such as the Princess Bride.

Just for US Residents?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looked through the brief and it sounds like it is for US residents only - does this not apply to Canadians as well???

electric bugaloo..

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean my copies of american ninja 1 & 2, and electric bugaloo arn't the finest quality available?

Re:Correct (NOT correct! really!)

[nodrogluap]

True, true, But why would you buy a fancy widescreen TV, buy a special widescreen edition, etc. to have a ever-more cropped picture? Most people would reasonably assume that anamorphically filmed movies will be shown in their full original glory on their new fancy equipment. The Princess Bride DVD cover shows a larger image for widescreen, but that is not the case when you actually play it. I say guilty as charged for such films.

doesn't sound like it to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe that is true. According to this quote from the settlement:

"If the proposed settlement is approved by the Court, Class Members who submit timely and valid Claim Forms may exchange each Eligible DVD for (i) a new MGM DVD from a list of 325 titles or (ii) $7.10."

It says each eligible DVD may be EXCHANGED for one of two options, a different dvd or $7. This is a pretty raw deal. They should be letting us keep these defective dvd's. I'm asusming they are going to be destroying these exchanged dvd's anyway. I also see no mention of who is going to be paying to ship these deffective dvds back to them. Hopefully the claim form will include postate paid labels.

And geez, their automated phone system sucks. It only let's you submit one claim each call. Luckily I only have about 7 affected dvd's.

Re:"Butchered movies"?? Educate yourself please.

[CoreyGH]

Are you saying that EVERY movie on that list was originally shot in open-matte? How do you know this?

Good Luck with that

[gdesignrr]

Let me know how it goes getting money or a replacement. I went all over their site and couldn't find any information on how to make a claim. Luckily I only have 1 MGM DVD (I was surprised to realize that I apparently mostly like to buy DVD's put out by WB).

Anyway, if you figure out how to get money or make the exchange, let us know

Re:Good Luck with that

[Merlinium]

If you RTFA, you will see it says to call the 1-800 number to get a claim form.

Finally

[Spoonito]

Now I can see THE ISLAND OF DOCTOR MOREAU the way it was meant to be seen.

Claim form request

[Anonymous Coward]

When you call in for a claim form, they use voice recognition of the movie title to verify you have a valid claim. It didn't have very good success trying to recognize me saying "Koyaanisqatsi" -- good thing I also have "Under Fire" :)

Must Call to get form

[Anonymous Coward]

Just incase anyone else is trying to find the form on the web site, it's not there. You have to call them at: (800) 285-2168 (toll free)

It's an automated system, pretty simple, press 2 at the main menu, say the name of your movie, then say your name and addy. Takes about a minute and the form will be mailed in a few days.

-Rick

Re:Correct (NOT correct! really!)

[FlunkedFlank]

If you worked in a commercial projection booth, you would know that anamorphic lenses shoot 2.35, not 1.85.

Re:Like the "panoramic camera" swindle of the 1990

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I disagree on that point. The director is composing the scenes to fit within that wide-screen format, and then MGM was recomposing the scenes and then re-cropping them.

But that's the whole point: They DIDN'T. If you had bothered to read some of the comments above you, you would have knowen this.

Re:Like the "panoramic camera" swindle of the 1990

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Well, this guy is talking about panoramic cameras, not prints. Panoramic camera implies more than just cropping an image from am otherwise regular camera. I'm sure Google can help you out if you want more details on panoramic photography.

Replacement is NOT the same movie

[rstewart]

Please read the fine print on the site. It does not indicate that you will receive the same movie correctly formatted. Instead you will be trading in your existing movie for a different dvd off of a list.

"may exchange each Eligible DVD for (i) a new MGM DVD from a list of 325 titles"

Don't send in your existing movie you love to own expecting the same movie back. However if you own a dvd on the list and don't care much about it then you may be able to get a movie you like better from them. Without the list of 325 titles to choose from though it's quite a risk right now.

They could do the same as the RIAA did and dump movies that weren't selling well.

Re:Replacement is NOT the same movie

[Anonymous Coward]

I just received the "Proof of Claim" form. It's true - you have to send them the actual DVD as proof of purchase, and the titles you can choose to replace it with are totally different movies (and not a great selection, either). You DO get the choose the movie, at least. As for the $7.10 refund, that's totally a waste (I'm sure most of us paid at least $10 or more for our original movies).

Not all movies are squeezed

[spitzak]

Nowadays in the theatre you will see two aspect ratios, 1.85 and 2.35. Pay attention and you will see that they either move curtains left/right at the edges or (in modern theatres) move black bands up and down at the top/bottom to make the screen the right size for the current film. Also you will often see preview trailers that are at the other aspect ratio and don't fill the screen.

1.85 movies are shot "flat" with the 1.85 rectangle filling the width but centered vertically in the 1.33 frame. Originally what was in the rest of the frame was whatever the camera saw there (such as boom mikes, lens shades, the top edge of the set, tape marks and wires on the floor, and the lens itself, and all kinds of fun stuff). On all modern films what is there is either stuff the director intended (such as the Princess Bride) or it is black. Any movie in the past 30 years with significant special effects would put black there, at least for the effects shots. All modern films with digital processing put black there, since it is trivial to throw away that data after the film is scanned.

2.35 movies are anamorphic, or "Panavision". In this case the rectangle is distorted by squeezing it horizontally to fit in the 1.33 frame (actually slightly taller than 1.33). In this case there certainly is no information out the top and bottom of the frame.

It does sound to me that MGM did nothing wrong, the "wide screen" ones being complained about are actually replicating what was seen in the theatres by cutting the top/bottom off the 1.33 frame to just give you the 1.85 rectangle. Saying "more information" is a lie, but can really be considered a typo by the advertising department, where it was true for the 2.35 films. Besides they haven't been sued for printing "the even more exciting sequel" on the boxes, and that is a lie too!

Requesting the claim form.

[OgGreeb]

I agree that the problem is overblown, but I see this as a chance to trade some of the listed DVD's I've had second thoughts about purchasing, so I tried to request the claim form as in the website instructions. You should note that:

1. The claim form is *only* available by calling a toll-free (in the US) phone number. Why they couldn't make it available for download and submittal online isn't clear. Also not clear is what you are supposed to do if you are not in the US. (Perhaps the settlement only applies to US residents?) Maybe they think less people will respond if they make it more of a hassle.

2. When you call the number a voice mail robot will ask you for the title of one of the disks you want to claim, compare it to its internal list, and then ask you for your name and postal address. The wait while you speak your address is VERY short -- just about too shore to speak it. I had to call back to get the whole address in. Again, the website should have been an easier way to do this.

A Better Compromise / Settlement?

[Cy Guy]

Rather than addressing the movies already pruchased, why not require MGM release all films produced in this manner in a dual format going forward. It would seem that it could be engineered direclty into a single digital copy of the 4:3 image that when the user wants to see it in "widescreen" it just does the cropping digitally.

This would certainly be trivial for PC playback of the film. For playback on console DVD players, it might require flashing the BIOS.

Free money via WalMart/MGM?

[hymie3]

Uhm.... so, I couldn't help but notice that *some* of these movies are *so* horrible that they're in the the super-duper cheap bin at WalMart.

I got Frogs for a laugh this past October... for right at $5.

Hmm. So... I can buy a whole bunch of copies of, say, Frogs or Amos and Andrew for $5.24 at Walmart and turn around and receive $7.10 for them?

Or am I reading this way wrong?

Re:Free money via WalMart/MGM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bua ha ha ha ha!!

I always wondered why

[zippthorne]

They didn't just put the entire original frame (of whatever ratio it is) on the DVD and also include a file describing a bounding box for each frame for whatever format you want. I can't see a file that contains 4 numbers per frame (2 coordinates are all you need to describe a BOX) taking up enough space on the disk to be noticeable, but the value of having ALL the formats on the disk would be much better than having to choose, especially when one format costs more than the other.

i.e. what if I take it to a friend's house and my friend only has a 15" television.. i'd want the full screen version so i wouldn't be annoyed by how small the picture was, but if I had another friend with a HD widescreen plasma display, well i'd probably want the widescreen version, or whatever was closest to the "raw" format.

Re:Like the "panoramic camera" swindle of the 1990

[cei]

Yes, in terms of X-Pans, Widelux, Horizons, etc. But I believe the original post here was referring to the "panorama" mode of APS cameras, which were, in fact, just crops of the full frame.

Re:The point of a movie is its script.

[miskatonic alumnus]

The screenplay is the core of any movie, beyond the director's vision and beyond the trappings of its presentation.

Compare Hitchcock's Psycho with Gus Van Sant's remake and then come back and say that again with a straight face.

KOYAANISQATSI !?!

[javaxman]

KOYAANISQATSI was done in PAN AND SCAN ?!?!!

Ok, someone should be shot. I mean, I don't care if they sell widescreen copies of "Bill & Ted's" ( all due props to Bill & Ted ) that are pan & scan so much ( what's cut out of the shot, really? ), but... you'd pan & scan a movie that's literally *all* about the shots and scenery ?? Bastards. Replacing the movie is not enough punishment.

Re:KOYAANISQATSI !?!

[Anonymous Coward]

This movie was originally shot in 4:3 and was intended to be shown this way. It is different from the other dvd's in this case where the film is supposed to be matted. The fullscreen Koyaanisqatsi was a limited release and is very rare.

Re:KOYAANISQATSI !?!

[Anonymous Coward]

This nice page visually compares the Koyaanisqatsi premium and MGM mass market DVDs. The artwork on the back of my MGM DVD showed 50+ scenes from the movie, all of which showed the unmatted 4:3 compositions I loved and remembered. The "widescreen" DVD butchered my favorite shots, and is actually thinner than fullscreen.

Koyaanisqatsi has some squished anamorphic stock footage of strip mine explosions. These scenes were left as is in the 4:3 original, then masked for DVD in complete disregard for the original source's intended aspect ratio.

I'm increasingly bothered by PBS "documentaries" cropping historic 4:3 newsreel footage to 16:9 and giving a blatantly false version of recorded history. If documentarians need to fill widescreen TVs, they should use smart stretch, not second guess professional photographers of the past.

This Is INSULTING!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they saying that my copy of Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo is somehow... defective? I think not.

Re:Like the "panoramic camera" swindle of the 1990

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Exactly. I think we have our wires crossed. The original poster was saying that these particular cameras (not sure if it was refering to the APS ones or not) were not true panoramic cameras. Then the replying poster talked about print sizes, pressumably not understanding that there was to more panoramic photography than the dimensions of the film or prints.

Anyway. I'll stop now before I start to confuse myself.

Re:The point of a movie is its script.

[mrmez]

So - the point of KOYAANISQATSI, a series of short clips with no dialogue, is the script rather than the editing? I think you'll have difficulty convincing anyone of that - particularly since I don't imagine that there was a script. In these days of atrocious crap becoming monster hits more because of the special effects than due to remotely decent writing, stating that the screenplay is the core of any movie is silly. Even with Star Wars, originally a hit because of the story, Lucas has abandoned all pretense of depending on good writing in favor of cheap story-telling and expensive but pointless effects.

How to find out

[WidescreenFreak]

I haven't looked at the whole ist, obviously, but those that I looked are open-matte. I know because I've been keeping track of this (hence to web site) for almost 10 years now. :)

For a more practical use for you, you can find out the filming method at imdb.com. Click the "Technical specs" like for that particular movie and it will tell you how it's filmed.

If it's filmed using "35mm spherical" but in widescreen, I can just about guarantee that it was matted for the widescreen release. A *few* movies are filmed spherically but hard-matted. I believe "I Married and Axe Murdered" is one of these. Hard-matted movies need to be panned-and-scanned just like anamorphic movies.

Thank God...

[mlylecarlin]

Thank God I don't like a single one of those movies.

Re:A case of misunderstanding? Youbetcha.

[thdexter]

They didn't win a court case about it. MGM decided they would settle without admitting fault, and the plaintiffs agreed to do so.

BTF II

[ejort79]

This isn't one of the affected movies, but a similar problem is in BTF 2. I was irritated by one schene in the dvd of Back to the Future 2. Where Marty puts on the jucket from the future, and "size adjusts" to fit him you can't see the end of his sleves in the widescreen dvd. In the old TV version (perhaps the VHS as well I don't know for sure) you could see the entire length of the sleves.

Never mind... when RTFA isn't enough...

[javaxman]

Sigh.

Geez. Whatever, people. Second non-story I've seen on /. today.

It turns out, from what I can tell, that the movies on this list are essentially as close to "how it looked in the theatre" without going anamorphic, right ? Not that they're cropped and cropped again, which is certainly what it was made to sound like.

If this is the case, well... that's what I want. I definitely don't want un-matted scenes where you can see boom mics and other off-screen stuff that shouldn't be there. MGM should be made to correct their advertising and box covers, but... it'd be nice if it could be done without making a bunch of laywers rich and confusing a bunch of consumers.

move along, nothing to see here... FWIW it sounds like buying anamorphic movies when you can is best, perhaps?

Upside For Some?

[MudButt]

I guess if your DVD is all scratched to hell and doesn't even play anymore you can get another DVD or 7 bucks whereas before you were just screwed! And to think... I was keeping my virtually destroyed copy of Lambada for sentimental value!!!

You got ripped off, then...

[TrentC]

Rather they will buy them from you at $7.10 each. Even though you paid nearly twice that for them.

Lemme tell you something; I worked as a supervisor at my local Fry's Electronics for about two years, and one of them was as the supervisor for CDs & DVDs.

As a good supervisor, I paid attention to what my buyers were telling me about what products were high-margin, so I knew what to promote. In particular, Fry's seems to have a good relationship with MGM; if you'll notice, you'll see huge displays for MGM movies in just about every Fry's (not to mention Fred Meyer, Best Buy, etc.)

If you follow your local Fry's ad, you'll see ads on huge sales for MGM DVDs(things like "2 for $15" or "$5.99 each"). The same probably also goes for Best Buy, etc.

Here's the thing: almost every movie on this list are movies that I remember seeing, over and over again, in Fry's special promotions! Most of these movies came out at $9.99 or less when they were first released.

In short, if you paid more than $10 for most of these movies, you got ripped off. $7.10 per movie is almost close to a full refund, if you were smart and shopping the ads -- it's definitely a lot more than MGM was selling them to Fry's for.

Don't just take my word for it, print this list out and take it to your local Fry's -- you'll see these movies on every endcap or display. Follow your local Fry's ad for the next couple of months; you'll see these movies pop up, again and again.

Jay (=

Shopping Around

[doombob]

I don't know where you people are shopping, but if you look in the bottom of the barrel bins at Wal-mart, you can find most of these movies at 2 for $11. I say, go there and find a ton of these to make a quick two bucks a pop + labor.

so when was it fixed?

[E8086]

so when did they get around to fixing it? I bought my copy of Spaceballs about three months ago, is it really WS or do I have to go convince BestBuy(starting the BestBuy comments...now) to let me exchange an open DVD purchased several months ago bought at another store for a new one?

Princess Bride?

[Anonymous Coward]

who the fsck watches such movies in the first place?

This smells of BS to me.

[generalleoff]

I read through most of the responces to this matter and then went and checked out my MGM DVDs to see whats up. Nothing looked wrong at all when I checked the "fullframe" vs. the "widescreen" side of the discs and attcualy on some of my discs like Spaceballs the widescreen side has more image on the left and rigt then the fullscreen side. This says to me that the statment that the fullframe side is modifed from the original theatricl image is totaly correct. Also some of the shots on that movie are formated in a way they would just not work if the disc was pan & scaned then later tilt & scaned (tilt & Scan is the common used term for taking a fullframe image and making it widescreen and it has been done in the past). I say this is all BS and theres nothing wrong with the movies themsleves but rather just the way things were worded on the cases causing confusion. This is just more crap like the big Microsoft anti-trust suit that was so full of it. I will not be returning my discs.

Re:Like the "panoramic camera" swindle of the 1990

[CaptainCarrot]

We thought that they'd use a wider strip of 35mm film and actually take a physically wider picture.

What camera store is this? I think I want to avoid any such place where the employees think that 35mm film can ever be wider than 35mm.

Re:Correct (NOT correct! really!)

[nodrogluap]

Please. "Anamorphic" is a type of lens, not a particular lens, therefore the statement "anamorphic lenses shoot 2.35" is incorrect. Both 1.85 and 2.35 are used commercially, though 1.85 was more frequent in my day (and hence I used it in the example). 2.35 films were a bit of a pain, because nobody made previews in 2.35, so you'd have to switch lenses between the previews and the feature. If you're ever at a theatre and there's 10 seconds of black spliced in between the previews and the feature, look up at the projection booth and you'll see the projectionist switching lenses.

Re:Like the "panoramic camera" swindle of the 1990

[Anonymous Coward]

... you would have knowen this.

Don't you hate it when people don't understand fillims?

I've seen worse

[Garabito]

I saw a consumer asking for film for his camera (it was APS) and the clerk trying to sell him 35 mm film.

And this happened at The National Air and Space Museum gift shop, no less!

Re:I've seen worse

[CaptainCarrot]

Well, I knew what he meant; I was just tweaking him. He should have said "longer". 35mm still photography takes place "sideways" on the film compared to cinematography, so you really could get a wider image by exposing a longer piece of film than normal -- or you could, if the panoramic camera makers were being honest. Width of the film means the size measured from edge to edge across the perfs.

I wouldn't expect a counter drone even at the Air & Space Museum to know what he or she was talking about though. When it comes to photography they'd be no more qualified than your average 7-11 clerk. They just dress and smell better.

Clerks Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh Navy Seals!

Re:Correct (NOT correct! really!)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most people would reasonably assume that anamorphically filmed movies will be shown in their full original glory on their new fancy equipment."

Not unless, when they look on the package for the word "Anamorphic" they see it. Maybe I'm just geeky enough to know better, but I do know better than to expect it to be that unless it specifically says so.

Re:Correct (NOT correct! really!)

[AK Marc]

If you're ever at a theatre and there's 10 seconds of black spliced in between the previews and the feature, look up at the projection booth and you'll see the projectionist switching lenses.

Wow, you are old. I worked in a movie theater 15 years ago and all the projectors would automatically switch lenses. It took less than one second to switch lenses, and the command was attached to the print so that it required no human intervention.

Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

As an example, check out this. Are you suggesting that the director intended you to see the boom mike in Princess Bride, or that he intented you to see that John Cleese had pants on?

The solution is obvious.

• Cut out two rectangles of black construction paper in the ratio 1:6.8.
• Tape them across the top and bottom of your teevee screen.
• Sit back and enjoy your now shortless/mikeless movie.

You're all missing the point! Read the suit again.

[Yooden_Vranx]

This is a great discussion of widescreen vs. normal, and how widescreen is achieved, but I think you've all missed the point about what the suit is claiming: "The gravamen of Plaintiffs' Complaint is that certain representations on the LABEL and PACKAGE insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and misleading because MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio have the same IMAGE WIDTH as MGM's standard screen format DVDs." (caps mine) If you look at the package for one of the DVDs, there is a little rectangle in a 4:3 aspect ratio that says "Standard" and "Modified to fit your screen." Below it there is a 16:9 Widescreen rectangle that says "Theatrical release format. Enhanced for widescreen TV." Now, this 16:9 rectangle is the same height as the 4:3 rectangle, but it's wider. Now consider the image width if you put one of these WS DVDs in, versus that for a pan-and-scan. They're the same- the width of my TV. The difference in presentation is the top-to-bottom distance. As I read it, what the suit is really claiming is that the box suggests that a WS DVD should give me a picture that is the same height as a normal image but WIDER (that is, wider than my TV). I guess they think MGM should have made the widescreen box the same width but shorter, but then they never would have been able to convey that widescreen has more information in it (at least for those movies that are really supposed to be widescreen). Or maybe MGM should have made their 4:3 movies with black space on all four sides, with a tiny little image in the middle. Then the wide screen version really would be wider. So, good discussion on how widescreen is done, and some good points are made about how some widescreen versions are botched, but that's not what the suit is about, and even if MGM settles there's nothing there about getting a fixed version. They're just claiming that this little diagram is not only misleading but fraudulent. You be the judge on whether I've read this right, but if I have, no one should send their DVDs back as this suit borders on frivolous.

DVD'S NOT DEFECTIVE, CONFIRMED BY DIGITAL BITS

[Anonymous Coward]

This article needs to be completely revised to show the truth.

Here is the Digital Bit's explanation of this:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/mgmsuit/m gm suit.html

All these people screaming about "cropped pan & scan" and "they ripped us off" have no idea what they are talking about and are only spread confusion and ignorance about this issue. Follow that link and educate yourself.

Re:Correct (NOT correct! really!)

[nodrogluap]

Either that, or our company was cheap. I was working 13 years ago :-)
We taped magnetic markers onto the film for automation of the lights, curtains, etc., (which is what I assume you mean by "attached to the print"), but had to change lenses by hand.

Easier way to check?

[ab]

I grepped for the manufacturer code 027616 in the UPCs of my collection to come up with a list and then checked that against the titles. That was easier and probably right.

Rocky IV Proves You All Wrong

[smarterthanyou]

On the Rocky IV box, MGM says the film was shot in 2.35:1, yet the black bars are tiny, offering the same picture as a 1.85:1 release. The picture is simply NOT WIDE. So I ask you -- where is the 2.35:1 print of Rocky IV? Rent the DVD and see for yourself. Take a tape measure to your TV screen. The image doesn't add up. Now, add that to the fact that MGM chose not to fight this case and settled. Add to that the marketing campaign that clearly educates the %99 of Americans who have never heard of "soft matting" that all 1.85:1 shot films show %30 more picture when viewed widescreen, you have the makings of a case that is taking MGM to task for lying and MAYBE even (as Rocky IV would indicate) cropping fullscreen prints to look wide.

Has anyone actually received forms to get money?

[jonhartman84]

I haven't received mine yet and I was wondering if any on had? I have a very good place that sells DVD's for cheap so I could actually rebuy the DVD's with the money I would get.

Re:Has anyone actually received forms to get money

[jonhartman84]

I guess no one is reading this anymore. I wish I could get an answer on this question!