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

Myopia

[psi42]

Heh... are we all so blind?


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

"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:Er.

[chowells]

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

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: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: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: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: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.

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.