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