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.
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
Heh... are we all so blind?
I don't remember noticing this, or hearing about it.
Defenestrate Windows...
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.
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 ;)
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...
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.
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
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.
From the settlement:
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,
meanwhile
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.
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).
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.
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.
I would refer you to http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/ThatsMySay/ThatsMySay .asp?StepName=Read&ID=21 for the straight dope.
Calm down people.
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?
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.
Is hell freezing over or did I just hear a European wanting to be included in the US legal system?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pixar actually renders the widescreen and fullscreen versions separately, with the scenes recomposed appropriately.