Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

An open plea to MGM to STOP releasing FULL FRAME ONLY discs of WIDESCREEN titles. All members help!


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
165 replies to this topic

#41 of 166 OFFLINE   Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter



  • 2,680 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted August 27 2003 - 10:07 AM

I, for one, simply don't get it.

When studios issue both formats, WS copies sell better. When studios issue both formats on a single disc, "black bar haters" don't protest the disc. When studios issue a film in WS only, you don't see people protesting and refusing to buy it.

So I guess what I don't get is what made MGM think that if they released these films in WS people wouldn't buy them, and that FS/pan&scan releases will sell more copies.

I have a whole line of pan & scan titles in my home - they're called videocassettes. If MGM or any other studio is only going to offer me what I have on video, exactly the same but on a round, shiny disc instead of a plastic rectangle, I'm not going to buy it.

Releasing a product in a way it's never been avaliable for purchase before (i.e. widescreen) can be an incentive for sales.

Studios are not gods, consumers are not slaves without freedom of choice. If MGM or any other studio offers me a product I want, I'll buy it. If MGM or any other studio offers me a product I do not want, I won't buy it. I'm not going to take the position of "I should be thankful that MGM even makes DVDs and should buy whatever they put out and thank them just for putting something out." If I don't want it, I won't buy it. Releasing a film panned and scanned is something I do not want. I own zero pan and scan only releases on DVD.

MGM has demonstrated that it can make quality products; I don't need to look much further than the few 007 titles I own to see that. Hannibal is also a great special edition, as is The Last Waltz. The release of The Terminator is pretty solid as well, same goes for This Is Spinal Tap.

I would love it if MGM could explain why it produces products in a manner that alienates fans and reduces sales. I don't claim to be a business expert; perhaps there is good reason for putting out something no one wants, and if so, I would like to understand why that is.

#42 of 166 OFFLINE   Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul



  • 40,513 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted August 27 2003 - 10:40 AM

I posted this in another thread but it bears
repeating here....

This is a very disturbing situation and a real
uphill climb for all of us. Obviously MGM doesn't
care how the fans feel about these widescreen
films being modified on a highly advanced video
format like DVD. You would think the
studio would hold themselves as responsible as
curators of a Museum full of treasures. You don't
take valuable artwork (in this case film) and
distort its image for public viewing. Do you
think the artist (in this case the director and
crew) approves of the studio altering their
priceless artwork?

For God's sake, when will studios realize that
film is an artform and that they are given the
responsibility of properly preserving that artwork
for future generations? If they don't, who will?

 

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

 Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders  Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

 Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive Click Here for our complete DVD review archive

 Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule  Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#43 of 166 OFFLINE   Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter



  • 2,680 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted August 27 2003 - 03:59 PM

I've often had to explain to friends and family why my movies had black bars on them, back in the days of VHS. The analogy I would use was similar to Ron's; I said that if you went into a museum and chopped off half of a Picasso, you'd be arrested. A bookstore cannot sell you half a book. Anyone who bought a CD and only heard sound from the left speaker would be upset. People get upset if they go to concerts or plays and have obstructed view seats.

Home video is the only medium where it is common practice to present the audience with an incomplete representation of a piece of work.

I thought the advent of DVD would allow for consumers to purchase a high end product at an affordable price, that would be as close of a representation of a film that is currently possible to get in a home environment. Leave VHS for the people who prefer pan & scan, and leave DVD for those who care about the movies. That's how it was at first.

As someone (I don't remember who) pointed out earlier in this thread, when Paramount or Fox or virtually every other major studio announces a catalog title, no one ever has to wonder and worry about "Is it in widescreen?" Only with MGM do we have that problem. MGM seems to have a policy of being the only major studio to repeatedly issue films in ways that are displeasing to consumers and fans, and is incredibly stubborn about listening to the audience, and looking at the other studios to gauge what the current standards for DVD are. Remember in middle school when you'd get into an argument with a kid in the playground about something, and even though you were right and the other kid was wrong, and obviously so (you said the sky was blue, your friend said otherwise), the kid would just keep saying his line over and over and over, as if continuing to stick to his guns and insisting on his (wrong) statements would make them right, if only he kept arguing long enough. Well, it doesn't work like that. MGM can put out fullscreen DVDs to the end of time, but that doesn't make it right, and it never will. MGM is also committed to disposing with the original optical subtitles from films and replacing them with player generated subtitles, which can lead to disastrous results (such as on their "Annie Hall" DVD). Or not presenting 1.66 films in anamorphic widescreen. I don't even have a widescreen TV, but I prefer my DVDs still to be encoded with the highest quality so that when I do have a 16x9 TV, my DVD collection will be ready for it.

MGM does do its share of high profile releases in widescreen, so I cannot believe that MGM thinks that fullframe is a superior format. I think it comes down to the fact that they just don't care; if a fullframe transfer leftover from VHS or LD is lying around, they'll just repackage it. But here's the thing: if they don't care enough to make a decent product, why should I care enough to buy it?

#44 of 166 OFFLINE   Andy_G

Andy_G

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 212 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 29 2000

Posted August 27 2003 - 05:31 PM

I think that the dictum: "follow the money" applies here.

It has been Kirk Kerkorian’s apparent policy since he acquired MGM to always make a quick buck; damn the long-term consequences. Notice that, in fewer than 15 years, MGM went from producing high quality films like North by Northwest to "no budget" films like Shaft. This policy became even more apparent in 1986 when Kerkorian sold the entire MGM film library to Turner in order to "turn" a quick buck. (This may have turned out to be a good thing for the films--they are now in the safe hands of AOL Time Warner).

Today, the company that we call MGM is little more than the old United Artists (without the independent flair) and the film library of bankrupt Orion (among numerous others). The company is on life support in the form of its largest film property: The James Bond series (originally a UA product).

Make no mistake, the friendly folks who work at MGM Home Video probably want to put out the best product possible, but the reality is that they have a primary responsibility to the shareholders (primarily Kerkorian) who would rather not lay out hundreds of thousands of dollars for new film elements and HD transfers.

Chances are that the transfers we are seeing now were made for VHS in the mid-ninties by Warner Home Video (which had the MGM contract at the time, just look at a copy of an old Bond VHS tape). The majority are in pan and scan and, as long as they cost ittle or nothing to put on DVD, we will probably continue to see them.

#45 of 166 OFFLINE   Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer



  • 5,711 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted August 27 2003 - 07:37 PM

p.s. on an up-note...is everyone else as excited as me about the forth-coming 16x9 WS Chitty Chitty Bang Bang SE!!!???

That's great, but when are they going to put out a proper OAR release of The Secret of NIMH? I'm still waiting for that one.


MGM gets offended by 'mean-spirited' comments? Well, they have been offensive with their 'mean-spirited' action in not releasing proper anamorphic versions of "NIMH" and other titles.
"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#46 of 166 OFFLINE   StevenFC

StevenFC

    Second Unit



  • 481 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 23 2003

Posted August 27 2003 - 07:58 PM

It's a simple as this for me. I had planned on buying Gator and White Lightning when they came out. I had no idea--it never even entered my mind that they wouldn't be available in widescreen. But when I saw that they were pan and scan, I passed. If any studio thinks that pan and scan is the way to go with certain movies, then more power to them. But I won't be buying them.

Maybe it's a moot point--I don't know. It could be that there was never any way that certain films would see a widescreen release. Or that widescreen was even considered. But it's not the casual movie fans that have DVD collections in the hundreds. And they are certainly not the ones buying special editions.

I don't know, maybe we all take this too seriously and are a little bit anal about it. Could be. But that's just who we are. This is just how we feel. And we're the fans by and large that appreciate when a studio treats a film with respect and with the effort that was taken. Were not asking for the impossible here. We don't expect special edition fully restored DVDs of every movie. We understand that this is a business. But please--can't you at least throw us a bone here?? We want to be fans of MGM. And no one will sing your praises higher if you come through for us.
Steve's DVDs

The spammers motto: I stink, therefore I spam.

#47 of 166 OFFLINE   Malcolm R

Malcolm R

    Executive Producer



  • 11,670 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2002
  • LocationVermont

Posted August 28 2003 - 02:12 AM

if a fullframe transfer leftover from VHS or LD is lying around, they'll just repackage it.

That's part of why the current releases are so maddening. Many of these were issued previously in widescreen, either on LD or via one of the HDTV movie channels.

The widescreen masters must exist. But for whatever reason, MGM is choosing not to use them.
The purpose of an education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind.

#48 of 166 OFFLINE   Jon Martin

Jon Martin

    Screenwriter



  • 2,219 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 19 2002

Posted August 28 2003 - 03:41 AM

One thing about these titles, REAL MEN went pretty much direct to video. I remember seeing the trailer in the late 80's, but the film never came to theatres. Most of the people that saw it (and liked it if anyone did) never saw it OAR.

CAR 54 had a rather infamous release. On the shelf for years, studio went bankrupt. Again, more people saw it on video than saw it in the theatre.

MGM does a great job with most of the titles they release. Yes, they fullscreen only some B or C grade titles, but with the amount of films they release, you can't blame them if a couple don't get a proper release. And a lot of the titles they are releasing aren't even MGM titles to begin with. They may not be given the proper elements to make an anamorphic transfer.

Look at other studios, especially Paramount. They have hundreds of films that they have never bothered to release. That is far worse. MGM can always get around to going back and remastering a title if it is worth it. But other studios can't even be bothered to release it at all.

And again, these DVDs that are fullscreen retail in the $10 range. A third of the price of what many other studios are selling the titles for.

#49 of 166 OFFLINE   Carlo Medina

Carlo Medina

    Lead Actor



  • 9,752 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 31 1997

Posted August 28 2003 - 03:55 AM

Actually Jon, I have to disagree.

My momma used to say (at the risk of sounding like The Waterboy) "if ya can't do something right...don't do it at all."

All studios have unreleased material. It is not immediately apparent to me that Paramount has an inordinate amount of unreleased materials in comparison to other major studios - if you have stats and numbers please post or point to them. In fact, speaking only for me, I can't think of a Paramount title off the top of my head that I want that is not on DVD, but that's just me.

And I would much rather have a studio not release a product until a good, solid OAR transfer is available. Secret of NIMH is out: so what? I can't watch that P&S version, it's an atrocity. To me, as an OAR supporter, that title is as good as unreleased.

Back in 1997, when DVD was new and studios didn't know what they were doing, a few P&S transfers were understandable if not acceptable. But this is 2003. DVD is in the mainstream. OAR is accepted. And someone pointed out, there have been previous OAR versions on LD, so we know there's a master out there in OAR. So why would MGM pull this stunt?

And price is not a valid argument for not putting out quality. McDonalds has $.49 cheeseburgers but I never buy them. I'm willing to pay $2.49 for a good quality In-N-Out burger.

Not to mention the fact that there are a bevy of $10-$15 discs in OAR.

There is simply no excuse for this.

XBox Live: TheL1brarian (let's play Destiny on XB1)


#50 of 166 OFFLINE   Chet_F

Chet_F

    Supporting Actor



  • 777 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 01 2002

Posted August 28 2003 - 04:05 AM

"they(MGM) seem to take great offense to anything mean spirited"

I believe in the Golden Rule: Due onto others as you would wish them to do onto you.

If I released a film in FF only then I would expect to be spit on. So MGM get ready.......

I take GREAT OFFENSE to anything released as only FF so what comes around goes around MGM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image
"If you’re lucky, people like something you do early and something you do just before you drop dead. That’s as many pats on the back as you should expect." - Warren Zevon 1993, R.I.P.

#51 of 166 OFFLINE   Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul



  • 40,513 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted August 28 2003 - 04:14 AM

...and what's sort of cool is that statistics
are showing that those "newbie" consumers who
had been rejecting widescreen two years ago, are
finally starting to come around and accept the
black bars. Even though the studios never bothered
to educate the masses (as we pleaded them to do),
the masses have sort of educated themselves -- so
much so that BLOCKBUSTER has declared that they
are benefiting from WIDESCREEN over P&S.

One of the big factors helping the widescreen
cause is the influx of 16x9 televisions that
align the walls of stores like BEST BUY and
CIRCUIT CITY. More than ever, people are
buying 16x9 televisions, with an eye on owning
a plasma set one day.

Even the PORTABLE DVD players available today
are all widescreen formatted.

For the reasons above, more and more people
are beginning to see why FULL FRAME is bad news.
Imagine all those consumers who fought for P&S
releases two years ago, now buying 16x9 TVs
and/or PORTABLE DVD PLAYERS and finding out
that the picture off of those DVDs don't fill
the entire screen.

Most all the studios have realized how far we
have come in the past 2 years alone. You don't
see most of the majors releasing as many FULL
FRAME titles as they used to. They know that
everything electronic has now been formatted
for 16x9 viewing and that they now are dealing
with a more educated public who now realize the
benefits of widescreen.

You know, I go out to Hollywood every year.
I usually meet with the video department heads
during my stay out there. I like to consider
myself a very reasonable guy who can sit and
listen to a studio's point of view. When I
think the studio is in the right, I'll come
on this forum and defend that studio's position.

All MGM has to do is explain why they still
market their DVDs in this manner. I'll be happy
to meet with any of them and buy lunch in the
process. If there is truly a point I am missing
here, I'd love to hear it. I'll even come back
and defend their position if any of it makes sense.

Not that I expect any invitation from MGM to
meet them, but I'll be out in L.A. in 3 weeks.
Would love to sit down with you guys and really
hear your side of the story.

 

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

 Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders  Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

 Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive Click Here for our complete DVD review archive

 Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule  Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#52 of 166 OFFLINE   DonRoeber

DonRoeber

    Screenwriter



  • 1,851 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 11 2001

Posted August 28 2003 - 04:36 AM

I am very dissapointed in MGM for continuing to release DVDs that aren't in the origional aspect ratio. I'll be spending my money on DVDs from studios who do release their films correctly.

Oh, I've got 500 DVDs, and purchase at least 4 a month. Sorry MGM.
Luckily, right at that moment, an unconscious Argentinean fell through my roof.

He was quickly joined by a dwarf dressed as a nun.

#53 of 166 OFFLINE   Lyle_JP

Lyle_JP

    Screenwriter



  • 1,007 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2000

Posted August 28 2003 - 04:39 AM

It has been said so many times, but it says it all and bears repeating:

NO OAR, NO SALE!! EVER!!

My work here is done.

-Lyle J.P.

#54 of 166 OFFLINE   Walt Riarson

Walt Riarson

    Supporting Actor



  • 809 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 13 2002

Posted August 28 2003 - 04:49 AM

Despite my love of the films involved, I too have been disappointed by MGM's unstable selection of what gets Full Frame and what gets widescreen. I love, and purchase all of their horror titles every year because they are all (mostly) widescreen and 16x9. However, some titles (Rage of Honor, Gator, Revenge of the Ninja) for whatever reason were not dubbed widescreen worthy. I'd love to see these films in Widescreen, and really wish MGM would consider a re-release.
"My advice to young film-makers is this: Don't follow trends. Start them!" -- Frank Capra

#55 of 166 OFFLINE   Russell G

Russell G

    Executive Producer



  • 10,022 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 20 2002
  • Real Name:Russell
  • LocationDeadmonton

Posted August 28 2003 - 04:54 AM

I average 1 DVD purchases a week, which range from single disc to box sets. I have never bought a FF only disc, and never well. I will only buy OAR discs, and I have not bought any DVD that dosn't allow that option. I gladly double dip to upgrade currently owned DVDs for better transfers/suppliments.

There are a lot of great DVDs out their to spend my money on without having to compromise, and to bide my time until the studios release their product properly.

MGM, no OAR= No sale.

There is no excuse for doing this, not anymore.

#56 of 166 OFFLINE   Jon Martin

Jon Martin

    Screenwriter



  • 2,219 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 19 2002

Posted August 28 2003 - 05:05 AM

Quote:
All studios have unreleased material. It is not immediately apparent to me that Paramount has an inordinate amount of unreleased materials in comparison to other major studios - if you have stats and numbers please post or point to them. In fact, speaking only for me, I can't think of a Paramount title off the top of my head that I want that is not on DVD, but that's just me.


I don't have the stats, but if you look at their catalogue of titles, especially those from the 70's and 80's, the majority have never been released on DVD. They are one of the slowest to release catalogue titles of all the major studios. MGM releases in a month what they release in a year.

I am all for OAR releases. But I'm not an all or nothing person on this issue when it comes to a title I REALLY want on DVD. I'd be disappointed, but I'd get over it. The DVD format is better than the VHS format so I would rather have a fullframe DVD than the old VHS that wears out on each viewing. But this is only for films I really care about.

And to get back to the titles mentioned, does anyone here seriously think that there is all that much of a demand for REAL MEN in OAR? Do the 4 people out there who care enough about the film AND who care about OAR justify the expense of going through all that work? Think about it from a business standpoint, it doesn't make sense.

The truth is, most people out there really do not care about aspect ratio. This one record store I go to keeps all of their new DVDs behind the counter. When you want a title, and it is available both ways, the last three times I've been in there, all the people asked said they wanted the full frame when asked which version they wanted it. I know it is hard to believe, but we are in the minority on this issue.

As wide screen TVs become more popular, this will all change. But for now, OAR isn't a make or break issue for most.

#57 of 166 OFFLINE   Andrew Bunk

Andrew Bunk

    Screenwriter



  • 1,825 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 2001

Posted August 28 2003 - 05:07 AM

Recent MGM titles I would have bought if they were OAR include Remo Williams, Johnny Be Good and Bright Lights Big City. All were passed on.

NO OAR = NO SALE.


I'm happy to give MGM my money when it's done right.
My DVD, Blu-Ray and HD DVD Collection @ DVDSpot

#58 of 166 OFFLINE   Malcolm R

Malcolm R

    Executive Producer



  • 11,670 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2002
  • LocationVermont

Posted August 28 2003 - 05:23 AM

I know it is hard to believe, but we are in the minority on this issue.

No we're not. Check the sales charts, or Blockbuster, or Ron's post above. Widescreen routinely outsells pan-and-scan and most studios have come to realize this and are not releasing pan-and-scan only discs. They either release widescreen only or both. Only MGM seems to have their fingers in their ears, going "la la la, la la la, we can't hear you, la la la, la la la".

And I'd imagine a huge part of the potential audience for a film like "Gator" is film buffs who have invested lots of money in home theater and film libraries, and want their films in OAR. I doubt Joe Public is going to be walking through the aisle at Best Buy, see the disc, and exclaim "Hey, it's 'Gator'! I've been waiting years to buy this on DVD. And even better, it's in pan-and-scan! Yeee Haw!"
The purpose of an education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind.

#59 of 166 OFFLINE   Carlo Medina

Carlo Medina

    Lead Actor



  • 9,752 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 31 1997

Posted August 28 2003 - 05:23 AM

Quote:
And to get back to the titles mentioned, does anyone here seriously think that there is all that much of a demand for REAL MEN in OAR? Do the 4 people out there who care enough about the film AND who care about OAR justify the expense of going through all that work? Think about it from a business standpoint, it doesn't make sense.
Actually I think you have to look at it the other way. Does releasing it in P&S make it a better seller than in OAR? That is the only justifiable (from a business standpoint, not a film lover's standpoint) reason for doing so.

You say very few people care about Real Men. That may be true. But those few people are probably film connoisseurs (since it's a real niche film) and chances are will want it on OAR. An OAR version has been released in the past on LD - I think someone said earlier in this thread, so the OAR master exists somewhere.

So in fact, from a business standpoint, it makes LESS sense to release OAR with a title that quite frankly isn't going to light up the VideoScan charts. And they've managed to alienate quite a few of the people who WOULD have bought it by not releasing it in OAR (see this thread, which may contain the 4 people who you say are interested in the film). So then there is no acceptable (financial or common sense) reason for MGM to have done this.

XBox Live: TheL1brarian (let's play Destiny on XB1)


#60 of 166 OFFLINE   Carlo Medina

Carlo Medina

    Lead Actor



  • 9,752 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 31 1997

Posted August 28 2003 - 05:27 AM

Malcolm and Ron - excellent point about Blockbuster's notice re: widescreen.

WalMart is really the last bastion of P&S. When Blockbuster (who very much represents the "common person" as opposed to us film lovers) admits that OAR is now a viable thing to have in their stores, it's really not a niche thing anymore.

Six years ago people complained about black bars to me (people in my life, outside of HTF). Now most everyone I know understands the concept and accepts, if not favors, that presentation.

XBox Live: TheL1brarian (let's play Destiny on XB1)






Forum Nav Content I Follow