Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MGM's DVD Class Action Settlement

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the loss-of-picture-quality dept.

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.

75 of 518 comments (clear)

  1. R1 only? by philbowman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Phil
    1. Re:R1 only? by sifi · · Score: 2, Informative

      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)

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    2. Re:R1 only? by carwyn · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:R1 only? by rikkards · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    4. Re:R1 only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.

    5. Re:R1 only? by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

    6. Re:R1 only? by sasami · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Freedom is not the license to do what we like, it is the power to do what we ought.
  2. Myopia by psi42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Heh... are we all so blind?


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

    --
    Defenestrate Windows...
  3. I'm aghast! by bigtallmofo · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:I'm aghast! by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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
    2. Re:I'm aghast! by Maestro4k · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

  4. Interesting... by skatrek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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 ;)

    1. Re:Interesting... by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  5. What about the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    1. Re:What about the UK by blacksway · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:What about the UK by Todesmetall · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

  6. Text by psi42 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...
  7. Er. by Jethro · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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)

    --


    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    1. Re:Er. by musikit · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Er. by chowells · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    3. Re:Er. by mpe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Er. by mshiltonj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Software Wars
    5. Re:Er. by Jethro · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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".

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    6. Re:Er. by mausmalone · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.
  8. Open Matte by miTTio · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Open Matte by b.e.n.n.y_b.o.y_1234 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Check out this excellent site:
      http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml
      (right at the bottom of that page open-matte is explained)

      Ben.

    2. Re:Open Matte by mausmalone · · Score: 4, Informative
      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
      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
    3. Re:Open Matte by iainl · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    4. Re:Open Matte by LMCBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    5. Re:Open Matte by miTTio · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:Open Matte by CapnGib · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

      --
      Beauty is truly in the eye of the tiger
  9. Ok, Breakin and Breakin 2: Electric Boogaloo by brutusbuck · · Score: 2, Funny

    What are the other 2 on page 1?

  10. "Presumably..." by YetAnotherName · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. WTF? by sg3000 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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!
    --
    Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
    1. Re:WTF? by iainl · · Score: 5, Informative

      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?"
    2. Re:WTF? by Alrescha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "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.

      --
      ...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
    3. Re:WTF? by sg3000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >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.

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
  12. BIODOME by killmenow · · Score: 5, Funny

    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).

  13. Heard about this a few days ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  14. Re:Sick, outraged. by Sc00ter · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.

    --
    Free Mac Mini
  15. Pfft... by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Informative

    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!
    1. Re:Pfft... by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      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."

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
  16. Text list of movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  17. "Butchered movies"?? Educate yourself please. by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
  18. What's your pride worth? by ksdd · · Score: 2, Funny
    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?

  19. Don't Jump to Conclusions!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    Calm down people.

  20. Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  21. I have a question... by Tropaios · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  22. A case of misunderstanding? Youbetcha. by ClayJar · · Score: 4, Informative

    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. ;)

  23. Re:I wasnt aware... by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  24. What this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  25. Remember to read the small print by SpudGunMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...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

  26. Re:Sick, outraged. by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

  27. Correct by hanssprudel · · Score: 5, Interesting


    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.

    1. Re:Correct by nodrogluap · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Correct by Sc00ter · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

      --
      Free Mac Mini
  28. Re:Why those particular ones? by tap · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

  29. Re:"Butchered movies"?? Educate yourself please. by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  30. For those who need to understand aspect ratios by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
  31. Wrong! by Betaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  32. Like the "panoramic camera" swindle of the 1990s by The+I+Shing · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
  33. Re:Like the "panoramic camera" swindle of the 1990 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  34. Can I sue? by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 2, Funny
    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.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  35. ERROR ERROR!!!! Please read. by Deeze · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  36. What the director intended you to see. by schon · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:What the director intended you to see. by budgenator · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.
      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  37. Re:Correct (NOT correct!) by nodrogluap · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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).

  38. Re:silence of the lawyers... by DarkSarin · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    --
    "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
  39. A filmmaker's perspective by robyannetta · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

    --
    - Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
  40. Re:Correct (NOT correct!) by Sc00ter · · Score: 2, Informative
    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."

    --
    Free Mac Mini
  41. Pixar by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pixar actually renders the widescreen and fullscreen versions separately, with the scenes recomposed appropriately.

  42. Re:Wow. by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  43. Re:The point of a movie is its script. by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  44. You got ripped off, then... by TrentC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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 (=

  45. Re:I wasnt aware... by Noofus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.