Bizarre wide screen lawsuit (1 Viewer)

[JamieD]

Brian, I'd have to say, if it was up to me, I wouldn't mind if they were forced to rerelease this film.

I wanted the movie in the ratio I saw in theaters. I didn't get it, despite buying "widescreen". Sounds like a vague false advertising. If nothing else, it might force better labelling.

 

[Dwayne]

Seriously, give this guy an extra hot cup of McDonald's coffee. He'll spill it and won't be able to sue because there's a warning on it from the last lawsuit.

Funny you mentioned that since I planned on doing so myself.

Things like this are a sad statement on our society. I'm sure there are a fair amount of legit cases, but ones like these are disconcerting.

It all comes down to greed.

 

[Michael Harris]

How about a class action suit by owners of 16:9 TVs against the studios who claim that "pan and scan" movies are "formatted to fit your screen"?

 

[MattHR]

More details about this idiot and his lawsuit:
http://www.hive4media.com/news/html/...rticle_ID=4207

 

[Damin J Toell]

From the above article:

Titles cited in the Los Angeles Superior Court complaint include Hoosiers, A Fish Called Wanda, Back to School and The Package.

He may be onto something - the framing of the WS version of Back To School has often been cited as a complete mess.
DJ

 

[ToddJ]

I think this is the same Warren who was quoted as saying "Franks & beans!"

 

[Rick Deschaine]

Someone says this smells of Bernie being back. Well I think he may be right. I remember reading in this forum awhile back about some lunatic who was crusading that Full frame versions of all movies were the only proper way to show them. His name is Bernard J. Farber.
Here's a link for a refresher to his antics for anyone who may have forgotten who he is,
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronintom/BernieFAQ.htm
Enjoy!
Rick

 

[Mark E J]

Before people tar and feather this guy, has any one checked out the aspect ratio of the Hoosiers, A Fish Called Wanda, Back to School and The Package DVD's? Are they correct? Because I have seen incorrect AR's on older titles before. Most notably on the ABE's Manhunter Director's Cut. That DVD has the EXACT SAME ASPECT RATIO OF THE FULL SCREEN
VHS, but ADDS BLACK BARS ON THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE ALREADY CROPPED IMAGE. It does not represent the true 2.35:1 AR. Massive amounts of picture information is lost on both sides as well as the top and bottom.

If this is the case it seems to me that the guy IS NOT sueing against widescreen but for it.

 

[David Lambert]

Okay, I understand this now! It's just not being explained properly. MGM really did screw up, but not in the way it's being interpreted in the reports. It's a issue with how things are explained in their inserts!
Here's a quote from the above-linked article, that serves as a clue:

“The MGM widescreen DVD images are the same as standard format DVDs except that MGM cropped the top and bottom portion of the image, creating the black horizontal bars along the top and bottom of the image to mislead consumers that the image is the widescreen format,” the complaint alleges.

A Fish Called Wanda (AFCW) was named as one of the examples named there, right? Well, that's an open-matte film (if you don't know what an open-matte film is, look it up; it's a fairly widespread filmaking technique which I guess lead to the modern "Super35" technique in many ways).
Many of you might recall the open-mattedness of this film from my infamous "John Cleese isn't naked; he actually had pants on" example (actual images screen-capped from the DVD):

Other open-matte films are Wonka and Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, just to name a couple.
In the 8-page booklet that comes with the AFCW DVD, the inside back cover shows this Widescreen-Vs-Standard notice (something that was usually seen in MGM's inserts at the time):

This is trying to explain to customers what each version of the film will look like. Note the way that it shows the widescreen image, and that they crop it on the sides, down to a fullscreen (4x3) ratio and claim that this is what you will see on the "Standard" side of the DVD?
Well, when you crop down the above image to what you expect to see at that scene (5 minutes 22 seconds into the film), you expect to see this:

Yet when you go to the actual image on the Standard side of the AFCW DVD (both are included on one DVD, one version per side), you see a lot more:

The guy creating the booklet made an assumption about the nature of AFCW that was wrong; he didn't know it was an open-matte film! And, I'm being generous here that it was an error. The lawsuit alleges that it was intentional deceit!
But, a bit of research proves that this guy isn't a nutjob, he has an actual complaint. Now, it's still a frivolous lawsuit, IMHO, and I don't think it can help the cause of OAR in the least. Because now folks will go "See, those black bars ARE hiding something!", and not realize about the different film techniques that DO crop the image.
But the complaint IS legit, sad to say. MGM, you have some 'splainin' to do!

 

[David Lambert]

However, as far as education goes, there IS always this!

 

[Johnny G]

ISN'T EVERYONE MISSING ONE IMPORTANT WORD IN THE ARTICLE? THE WORD ALREADY IN THE STATEMENT THAT READS "ALREADY CROPPED 'STANDARD' VERSIONS".
THE ARTICLE DOES READ AS THOUGH HE'S CLAIMING THESE 2 DVDS HAVE BEEN CROPPED TO PRODUCE THE STANDARD (PAN & SCAN) VERSIONS AND THEN MATTED FROM 1.33:1 TO 1.85:1.
OF COURSE I'M PRETTY SURE HE'S WRONG, UNLESS MGM MADE A HUGE ERROR WITH THESE 2 MOVIES.
ON THE OTHER HAND, HE COULD BE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE LITERATURE DEPICTING HOW A PAN & SCAN MOVIE IS OPENED UP FOR THE WIDESCREEN VERSION TO SHOW MORE PICTURE ON THE SIDES, DIMISSING OPEN MATTE ALTOGETHER.
IN WHICH CASE, HE HASN'T MUCH OF A CASE, SEEING AS MOST OPEN MATTE FILMS HAVE AT LEAST 1 SPECIAL EFFECTS SHOT WHICH WOULD BE CROPPED FOR PAN & SCAN.
EVEN WORSE THOUGH, IS THE ARTICLE THAT WOULD BE WORDED INCORRECTLY AND CAUSING ALL THIS CONFUSION.

 

[Johnny G]

SORRY DAVID, I JUST READ YOU POST.

THE GUY HAS A POINT BUT I DOUBT HE'S A FILM BUFF, JUST A MONEY GRABBER!!!

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Johnny, turn off your caps lock

 

[Mark Zimmer]

But Back to School is definitely zoomboxed. I suspect there are others out there, and frankly, a lawsuit over that is fine with me. Studios don't pay any attention to letters or petitions; the only thing that gets their attention is a summons....sad, but true.

 

[Arnie G]

Hopefully, the end result of this lawsuit will be correct labeling on the back of the cases.
Can you imaging such a concept!

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

2005 update.
I just got this link passed to me:
http://mgmdvdsettlement.com/
Hearing set for May 16th.
325 DVD movies are included in the list , and you can get a true WS replacement or claim $7.10 per DVD. To request a Claim Form, you must call 1-800-285-2168.
The list (PDF)
I figured if this was true, there would be more press, or someone on this forum would know. So anyone know if the claims are true or is it a continued misunderstanding of Open-matte?

 

[Elias A.]

That's a loooooong list of movies. Basically, it looks like every 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 movie released by MGM in a certain timeframe. It's very hard to believe that every title released in open matte format is improperly matted on DVD.

After reading the notice of settlement, it appears that the premise of the whole lawsuit is indeed flawed. Basically, the plaintiff is claiming that MGM misrepresented that all of its widescreen format movies added extra information on the sides, even though some of the movies were open matte and therefore didn't add anything information on the sides, and actually cropped information from the top and bottom of the frame. In a sense, the plaintiff is correct, since open matte movies actually don't add information on the sides (except in effects shots) and so MGM should not have put information in the insert claiming that widescreen always adds information. But, as already discussed here in depth, regardless of whether matting the picture adds information or takes it away, the real issue is whether the format represents the correct theatrical aspect ratio. Also, it's hard to see how the plaintiff or anyone else was really damaged by MGM's practices, even assuming that they did misrepresent the format of some movies. I guess MGM is just settling to make the whole thing go away.

Also, it's interesting that only 1.85:1 and 1.66:1 movies are involved. What about Super 35 movies? Under the plaintiff's theory, MGM misrepresented them as well. Maybe that will be the next lawsuit.

 

[Sean Richardson]

What about Super 35 movies? Under the plaintiff's theory, MGM misrepresented them as well. Maybe that will be the next lawsuit.

I said the same thing on a different forum and was told that Super 35 does wind up losing a little information on the sides. Dunno if it's true or not, but MGM does seem to be way overloading the list with anything that could possibly be eligible, so they probably thought of Super 35 at least in passing.

 

[Kevin Deselms]

If you read the actual class action document, you'll see that MGM actually denies any wrongdoing, or that there's any problem with any of their DVDs. They just decided to settle. It's curious to me that, if they truly believe there's nothing wrong with their DVDs, they'd give in on this lawsuit so easily.

 

[Andrew Pezzo]

They just decided to settle. It's curious to me that, if they truly believe there's nothing wrong with their DVDs, they'd give in on this lawsuit so easily.

Sometimes its cheaper to settle than go through a lengthy and expensive court battle. And if they lose its gets even more expensive. Sounds stupid but this happens often.