Bizarre wide screen lawsuit (1 Viewer)

[Vincent_P]

BILL AND TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE is on that list, and that's an anamorphic Panavision (2.35:1) film, and CHILD'S PLAY is available open-matte only, no widescreen at all. I wonder how many other films are on that list that are either open-matte only, Panavision/Cinemascope, or hard-matted 1.85:1, like THE TERMINATOR, which is also on that list.

Vincent

 

[Douglas Bailey]

325 DVD movies are included in the list , and you can get a true WS replacement or claim $7.10 per DVD.

I don't see anything about "a true WS replacement" on the settlement site: you can return any DVD from the list of 325 films and select in its place a DVD from a list of 325 films, but there's nothing to indicate that they're the same 325 films. How, after all, would MGM make "true WS replacement" versions of all those films that were formatted properly in the first place?

I suspect it's "if you're outraged by the misleading text and graphics about widescreen vs. 'standard', you can have a different movie" rather than a film-for-film replacement programme.

 

[Charles_Y]

It may be a little off topic, but whereas this "lawsuit" does appear spurious, to put it lightly, I'm wondering if such a suit might prove more apropos Universal Pictures and their recent pathetic trend in releasing anamorphic scope films such as, "Colossus: The Forbin Project" and "Iceman" in fullframe versions ONLY. The latter film could have used a 5.1 upgrade and a trailer for both would have been nice.
I can't believe giving these films a widescreen transfer REALLY costs anymore than providing a ridiculous pan and scan or fullframe version to the public.
Once again the freaking bottom line appears to win out. However, on older catalog titles, who do you think will be buying them? More than likely, interested and informed film fans, that's who. Lord, I think it's time for their wake up call.
Does anyone know if there is a new management regime over at Universal Video division?

 

[WillG]

I'm wondering if such a suit might prove more apropos Universal Pictures and their recent pathetic trend in releasing anamorphic scope films such as, "Colossus: The Forbin Project" and "Iceman" in fullframe versions ONLY

Unfortunately, I would say probably not as it is not a lawsuit that really has anything to do with MAR only released.

 

[Paul Sandhu]

I bet if they had explained the format in court they could have won.

 

[James Lambert]

In the last couple of days, this seems to have spread all over the place, with CHUD, Dark Horizons and even the usually reliable Digital Bits. The one thing they all seem to have in common is confusion though, as none of the above sites seem to know what the actual court case was about. I'm sure it'll all be dismissed next week if it all does boil down to MGMs bogus diagram explaining widescreen being incorrect on many matte titles.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Mmm, no, if there's a settlement the judge will almost certainly approve it, especially if he thinks it's bogus.

 

[JeremyErwin]

So, is there any way to confirm that certain films are open matte? Apparently, imdb doesn't have that information.

 

[Al.Anderson]

Okay, I guess I'm an idiot too. From reading the description I got the impression that he was complaining about a fullscreen print being cropped to make a widescreen version (like Kung Fu S1). Trivial lawsuit aside, I can see someone being annoyed at this. What am I missing here?

(Edit: Nevermind. Somehow I failed to see about 30 posts.)

 

[Colton]

Would this guy have a case if the studio took a P&S and just added black bars to the top and bottom and label it letterbox?

- Colton

 

[BrettB]

How very sad and disgusting.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Would this guy have a case if the studio took a P&S and just added black bars to the top and bottom and label it letterbox?

Most definitely. However, I think that much of the case rests on a unfortunate confusion between "pan and scan" (which is absolutely horrid), and "open matte" (which is an accepted technique formatting films for the small screen).

I happen to like a wide screen image, and generations of cinematographers have learned how to exploit the proportions in a more or less standardized manner. For example, two people can be shown in the same shot in wide-screen-- but a similar shot, in the 4:3 ratio, might feel less intimate-- the extraneous top and bottom implies a certain distance between the actors and the audience.

Before wide-screen came about, of course, filmmakers were just as creative in framing their shots for display on a narrower screen. The top and bottom were not extraneous, they were not distracting, they were a integral part of the frame.

OAR means that a DVD's proportions should reflect the proportions of the original theatrical display format. Strictly speaking, it does not imply anything about "missing information". It is easy to speak of bad cropping jobs, but waxing eloquent about correct proportions is somewhat more difficult.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

OAR means that a DVD's proportions should reflect the proportions of the original theatrical display format.

What if the film was matted for theatrical presentation against the filmmakers' wishes and/or intent? (e.g. "Shane")

Regards,

 

[Dave Poehlman]

I hope this settlement doesn't make studios gun-shy about releasing widescreen films. I

Just when we were making progress on the Pan&Scan war.

 

[Lyle_JP]

The confusion over this is largely MGM's fault. In their inserts on all of their older widescreen titles, they would always have a picture of a frame of the film in widescreen with a smaller box in the middle representing the full-screen or pan & scan picture area. The problem was that they did this on a lot of their 1.85 titles, and the picture of what the "pan & scan" image would be was simply incorrect.

Example: On the original Wargames DVD, there was a picture of one of the WOPR's screens, and the insert made it look like several letters would be cut off if you didn't have the widescreen version, but this could be easily disproved by watching any previous VHS release of the film. MGM was trying to illustrate graphically that you'd be getting "more picture" with this widescreen disc, when in fact you wouldn't.

 

[Charles_Y]

A late note for WillG: My "suggestion" about a more applicable lawsuit regarding the Universal situation was a mere joke friend. I was thinking I wouldn't have to explain my witty rejoinders. I guess I was wrong.
I still stand by my contention that Universal has little respect for OAR in releasing their catalog titles - a real shame!

 

[EugeneR]

I've decided to initiate a class action lawsuit against all the evil studios. That notice at the beginning of P & S movies that says "This film has been modified to fit your screen" is a LIE!!!! Not my 16:9 screen it wasn't!!! Someone must make them pay. I think that someone is me. All of you with 16:9 TV's must join my suit! We'll get rich and teach them a lesson at the same time.

Edit: D'oh!! I see someone already had this idea. Well, we now have to plaintiffs! Anyone else?

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Could someone break this down to ol' Scott in the dummiest terms possible? I trust this crowd implicitly when it comes to OAR and all that jazz, so my question is this: are the MGM movies that I own framed accurately? While I'm certainly not as knowledgable as you all are, I'm a staunch opponent of P&S or anything else that might alter the original filmmakers' intentions.
I'm not going to be participating in this lawsuit, but I just need someone to explain the complaint and its validity (or lack thereof) in relative layman's terms.
Plus I have friends who've been asking me about the lawsuit...and those dopes know even LESS than I do.

 

[Keith I]

The list of eligible DVDs on the list are, I'm pretty sure, the DVDs that have the old graphic representation of "widescreen" vs. "standard" (fullscreen) in their insert. I checked a few of those titles I own and all of them have this old representation.

To see what representation I'm talking about, look at the insert for any of the titles listed. You'll hopefully see the explanation image at the end of the insert or booklet. David Lambert's post #49 had these images but they're not there anymore.

All this lawsuit is about is the fact that these image/graphic representations are incorrect in comparison to what you actually see on the DVD. It has nothing to do with the DVD being open-matte, fullscreen, or widescreen.

So although this is a lawsuit that is unnecessary, it basically told MGM that their explanation on these DVDs were wrong. Nothing is technically wrong with the actual image on the DVDs. MGM had to settle because I think they realized that they were wrong to say nothing is wrong with their explanation.

You will agree to a settlement only if you believe you were mislead by the image representation and that what you actually saw is not what was indicated on the insert. This is not a battle about widescreen vs. fullscreen.
-

 

[jason:g]

I've got the insert too. As if the graphic representation matters.

How about throwing away the printed (offending) insert instead of pursuing a lawsuit against incorrect printed information?