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