MGM's DVD Class Action Settlement 518
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.
Wow. (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, while it was in the "Members only" phase, it seemed to go down, but the google cache of this stuff has the info as well as the cached files (and the HTML files for those who don't like to read PDF files).
Maybe they pulled it before it got too much attention? The big media companies would never do that. Never.
Myopia (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't remember noticing this, or hearing about it.
"Presumably..." (Score:4, Insightful)
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:All of them? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Er. (Score:4, Insightful)
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:Er. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Er. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Mistake"
Re:I'm aghast! (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember to read the small print (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Why those particular ones? (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Open Matte (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Open Matte (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:The point of a movie is its script. (Score:3, Insightful)
Compare Hitchcock's Psycho with Gus Van Sant's remake and then come back and say that again with a straight face.
You got ripped off, then... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (=