Slashdot Mirror
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.
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
Defenestrate Windows...
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
Free Mac Mini
From the notice of class action settlement:
:-) (UK's consumer 'justice' programme)
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
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
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.
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.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
The list (PDF) of butchered movies
/. editor. How refreshing it is to see.
Ah, once again an unbiased commentary from a
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.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
I would refer you to http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/ThatsMySay/ThatsMySay .asp?StepName=Read&ID=21 for the straight dope.
Calm down people.
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.
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.
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.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
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.
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.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
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.
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).
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
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.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
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.
... 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.
Please
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.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Free Mac Mini
Pixar actually renders the widescreen and fullscreen versions separately, with the scenes recomposed appropriately.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.