Bizarre wide screen lawsuit (1 Viewer)

[Matthew_Austin]

The crazy thing is, you could probably file a lawsuit against a studio for claiming a pan and scan cinemascope film is "full frame". All you have to do is find a lawyer greedy and dumb enough to file it.

 

[Arnie G]

I want to sue over Female Trouble and Pink Flamingos.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

Okay, let's start a class action lawsuit over the following:

1) Botching the 5.1 track of THE PRODUCERS.
2) Releasing CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG in pan&scan.
3) Non-anamorphic treatment of 1.66x1 material.

If idiots can play this game for the wrong reasons, why can't the rest of us play it for the right reasons?

- Steve

 

[Douglas Bailey]

The LA Times has another article about this lawsuit. This article describes the plaintiff's claim somewhat differently:

The complaint by Warren Eallonardo, an aspiring screenwriter, alleges that MGM, video rental giant Blockbuster Inc. and four retailers misled consumers by selling widescreen DVDs that presented significantly less of the picture than was shown in theaters. Instead of using the conventional letterbox format, which shrinks a film to fit the width of a TV, the complaint accuses MGM of cropping all sides of at least five films into a bogus letterbox format.

If that's the case, then this guy might actually be a real movie buff. Certainly he wouldn't be the first person to get exercised about so-called "zoomboxing."

 

[RichardMA]

How about simply bringing lawsuits against movie companies
that intentionally put out bad movies? You could nail
them on acting, script quality, cheap, unconvicing special
effects; A whole range of things. Imagine how much money
we've all wasted going to bad movies that we didn't know
would be as bad as they ended up being?

 

[Brian Harnish]

How about we sue over the current botched release of the Back To The Future Trilogy parts II & III?

 

[Bryan Tuck]

How about we sue over the current botched release of the Back To The Future Trilogy parts II & III?

We'd probably have a better case, at least

 

[Lee L]

Imagine (for kicks) that this goes to a jury. How will 12 (or 9 or however many they use in civil trials) "average" people ever understand all this stuff. Then they will find out that this guy is in favor of those eeeevillll black bars and rule against him in a second.

 

[Damin J Toell]

How will 12 (or 9 or however many they use in civil trials) "average" people ever understand all this stuff.

Juries regularly decide cases involving much more confusing issues than this one.

DJ

 

[Josh Dial]

I think directors et al. should sue the movie companies for releasing P&S versions, thus butchering their work
cheers!
Josh

 

[James Reader]

How will 12 (or 9 or however many they use in civil trials) "average" people ever understand all this stuff.

What hard to understand? Almost all films are made to be shown in a wider ratio than is possible on a normal tv set. To fit the wider aspect ratio in you have to have 'dead' space at the top and bottom of the screen.

Some films are filmed in a ratio similar to a television and are masked when projected. Most directors prefer to keep this masking when transferred to DVD as it keeps the composition the director intended (and may cover up unwanted details).

What's the problem. A four year old could understand that in a few minutes.

 

[JasenP]

I filed a similar lawsuit seeking a full refund and 2+ hours of my life back after I saw "Mission To Mars". I think he will receive the same settlement I got, a heaping cup of JACK SQUAT!
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.
Sometimes, I'm embarrassed to be a human.

 

[Joe McKeown]

Sometimes, I'm embarrassed to be a human.

Me too, usually I lie about it.

 

[Artur Meinild]

This is ridiculous! What kind of trial do they think they get? One representative from MGM is going to explain the open-matte principle, and then he loose. It's as simple as that!

 

[Robert Ringwald]

What's the problem. A four year old could understand that in a few minutes.

Sadly most people have the brain power of a milk dud.

 

[Julian Lalor]

The complaint by Warren Eallonardo, an aspiring screenwriter

Where does an "aspiring screenwriter" get the money to launch frivolous lawsuits? Perhaps his lawyer is also his agent.

 

[Daniel J]

Tonight on the late movie: an aspiring screenwriter is saddened by the misinformation perpetuated by big-business hollywood studios, and decides to stand up for his industry by taking them to court! This semi-autobiographical story was inspired by screenwriter Warren Lonardo's own life. A gripping drama about one man standing up against an industry for what he believes in.

 

[Lee L]

What hard to understand? Almost all films are made to be shown in a wider ratio than is possible on a normal tv set. To fit the wider aspect ratio in you have to have 'dead' space at the top and bottom of the screen.

Some films are filmed in a ratio similar to a television and are masked when projected. Most directors prefer to keep this masking when transferred to DVD as it keeps the composition the director intended (and may cover up unwanted details).

What's the problem. A four year old could understand that in a few minutes.

Ahh, to live in the UK where people seem to understand widescreen. In the US, the vast majority don't seem to. If they did we would not have ten threads in any given month about how we are getting screwed with a P&S only release or how someone tried to explain to the clerk at Blockbuster Video and was rebuffed.

Also, I was half kidding.

 

[James Reader]

Lee the problem is not that people can't understand, because they obviously could if they just had it explained to them in a few minutes.
The problem is people don't want to understand and when people don't want to do something, forcing the issue only makes them more resistant. Thanks to the many music videos and network television programs which choose to be presented in widescreen people's views will gradually change.
I've never really understood why people want their whole screen filled - especially on open matte transfers where although the overall 'picture' would be bigger, all of the objects in the picture remain the same size.
By the way, it sounds to me the complaint is against super 35 films which could have the frame opened up to show more peripheral content (and perhaps overscan is an issue too).

 

[Troy LaMont]

It amazes me that trivialities like this trife can even make it through our half-assed judicial system.
The guy is a complete and total idiot and his lawyers are even worse (things which I cannot put in print here!)
Doesn't the DVD have the standard "This film has been formatted..." disclaimer?
what a moron!
Troy