Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

Bizarre wide screen lawsuit


This topic has been archived.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

#1 of 127 Thomas T

Thomas T

    Screenwriter

  • 2,109 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2001

Posted December 14 2002 - 04:48 AM

From The Hollywood Reporter:

"A movie buff is suing Metro Goldwyn Mayer and several retailers, saying many so called 'widescreen' DVDs, advertised as showing the movie as seen in theatres actually show even less than already cropped 'standard' versions. Studios increasingly offer two versions of films on DVDs - a standard format cropped to fit a typical televsion screen, and a widescreen, or 'letterbox' version showing the full image as seen on a large movie screen. The letterbox version is wider left to right and has blacks bars above and below the image. But Los Angeles resident, Warren Eallonardo, 28, claims that several MGM movies he recently bought, including Rain Man and Hoosiers, falsely advertise widescreen versions of the films. 'In actuality, the DVDs provide a standard format with the top and bottom of the picture cut off", said Clifford Pearson, an attorney representing Eallonardo. "He felt like he is being ripped off." A representative of MGM did not immediately return a call for comment. The suit, which seeks class action status, was filed late Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court."

If I understand it correctly, it seems that this Eallonardo is in fact suing over full frame versions being correctly matted to their theatrical ratio! Very odd lawsuit and will only confuse the non-savvy DVD buyer evern more!

#2 of 127 Peter Apruzzese

Peter Apruzzese

    Screenwriter

  • 2,583 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 20 1999
  • Real Name:Peter Apruzzese

Posted December 14 2002 - 04:52 AM

Some people - in this case the plaintiff and his lawyer - are just idiots. They can't be helped, just ignored.
"What we're fighting for, in the end...we're fighting for each other." - Col. Joshua Chamberlain in "Gettysburg"

 


#3 of 127 Richard Kim

Richard Kim

    Producer

  • 4,389 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 29 2001

Posted December 14 2002 - 04:54 AM

Quote:
"A movie buff is suing Metro Goldwyn Mayer and several retailers, saying many so called 'widescreen' DVDs, advertised as showing the movie as seen in theatres actually show even less than already cropped 'standard' versions

There's an error in this article. "Movie buff" should be put in quotation marks.

Posted Image

#4 of 127 Jeff Pryor

Jeff Pryor

    Supporting Actor

  • 654 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 05 2002

Posted December 14 2002 - 05:24 AM

This Warren guy is a complete dumbass.
Heads I win, tails you lose.

#5 of 127 David Lambert

David Lambert

    Executive Producer

  • 11,382 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2001

Posted December 14 2002 - 05:51 AM

So are these two films matted presentations and he thinks that they are taking the original films, pan-and-scanning them, and then matting them again? Do I understand this right? Posted Image

MGM doesn't deserve this. I can think of three other studios that might, but MGM doesn't! Posted Image
DAVE/Memphis, TN

...Want to see your favorite show on DVD?

#6 of 127 Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer

  • 16,725 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted December 14 2002 - 05:55 AM

Our litigous society ...

#7 of 127 Rob Gillespie

Rob Gillespie

    Producer

  • 3,634 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 17 1998

Posted December 14 2002 - 07:43 AM

It would be nice to think - that in years to come - my life could become so free of stress, worry and toil that I could spend my time getting so incredibly upset over an issue such as this. And be wrong about it at the same time.

Some people have all the luck!
No longer here.

#8 of 127 Bruce Hedtke

Bruce Hedtke

    Screenwriter

  • 2,249 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 1999

Posted December 14 2002 - 07:47 AM

This is so moronic, it's not even worth responding to. Doh!

Bruce
The Mads are calling

#9 of 127 Steve Tannehill

Steve Tannehill

    Producer

  • 5,450 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 06 1997
  • Real Name:Steve Tannehill
  • LocationDFW

Posted December 14 2002 - 08:29 AM

Sounds like ol' Bernie is back...

- Steve

#10 of 127 AndyVX

AndyVX

    Supporting Actor

  • 808 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 02 2000

Posted December 14 2002 - 09:30 AM

I'm confused. I don't seem to understand what it is that he's actually suing MGM over.

Maybe that's for the best though. Posted Image
Andrew

#11 of 127 Jeff Kleist

Jeff Kleist

    Executive Producer

  • 11,286 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 04 1999

Posted December 14 2002 - 09:37 AM

He doesn't understand the filmmaking process, and how a movie is made

Wait'll he finds out about Super35 Posted Image

#12 of 127 James Reader

James Reader

    Screenwriter

  • 1,465 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2002

Posted December 14 2002 - 10:43 AM

But he's a 'film buff' - he must understand the filmmaking process. Posted Image

In actuality he does have a very, very small point: MGM use the same standard fullscreen/widescreen comparison diagram on all their releases, regardless of the original shooting ratio. From reading the initial post that seems to be his complaint - the difference between a widescreen open matte film and a widescreen anamorphic film are not represented accurately on MGM's literature.

Still its a silly complaint which is bound to get thrown out of court.

And I've never understood why people actually want the masking opening up on Super 35 films anyhow, as the actual picture content is not made any bigger by doing so - people, writing etc are the same size if matted or not. So what's the advantage?
"Would you recommend this movie to a friend?"
"Only if I was friendly with Hitler."

#13 of 127 Jesse Skeen

Jesse Skeen

    Producer

  • 3,997 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 1999

Posted December 14 2002 - 10:49 AM

There was a bit of confusion over 'open-matte' films when Back to the Future II first came out on laserdisc- it was the first time a movie had been issued in both widescreen and pan and scan, when the pan and scan version actually included some open-matte shots. At first glance people were comparing the 2 and thought "Hey, they just took the pan and scan version and slapped black bars on it! Ripoff!"
Sometimes you have to say "Trust me, it's SUPPOSED to be like that." Some people don't understand until you show them an actual 35mm print- when I first learned how to run a theater's projection equipment I noticed immediately that most of the 1.85 movies had picture at the top and bottom that was supposed to be cut off. This is why films shot that way don't look as awful in pan and scan on video as ones shot in scope (2.35) do. It's also the reason for boom mikes showing up at the top of the screen, especially on older transfers- they didn't mistakenly let the boom mike drop down, you just weren't supposed to see that part of the frame. Newer transfers usually zoom in to hide boom mikes, which is why they still cannot be considered true 'open-matte' transfers.
Now excuse me while I go sue Disney for not letting me buy Max Keeble's Big Move Posted Image
Home video oddities, old commercials and other junk: http://www.youtube.com/user/eyeh8nbc

#14 of 127 Brian Lawrence

Brian Lawrence

    Producer

  • 3,634 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 28 1998
  • Real Name:Brian

Posted December 14 2002 - 10:52 AM

Well it is worth noting that MGM's inserts usually show a little graphic with an example of how movies lose image on the sides when not in widescreen, even when the film in question is just a matted transfer(usually these graphics use a still frame from the movie in question) . Yes the matted version is still the correct one, but I can see where casual movie buyers, who buy a disc look at the graphic that shows they will be gaining image on the sides, and then pop the disc into their dvd player and only see image cropped off the top and bottom may feel that they have been ripped off.

That said, I can't believe how quick people are these days to try and sue over the pettiest things.

edited in- Whoops a little slow behind the keyboard, looks like James sort of beat me to this. Posted Image

#15 of 127 Jesse Skeen

Jesse Skeen

    Producer

  • 3,997 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 1999

Posted December 14 2002 - 11:03 AM

To use one MGM DVD as an example, I read in Video Watchdog that Texas Chainsaw Massacre II is open-matte, and the final shot in the movie is ruined as you can see a car driving by on the bottom of the screen in a scene that's supposed to be in the middle of nowhere.
Home video oddities, old commercials and other junk: http://www.youtube.com/user/eyeh8nbc

#16 of 127 Brenton

Brenton

    Screenwriter

  • 1,169 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 25 2002

Posted December 14 2002 - 12:30 PM

Oh my. That's hilarious. This guy needs a clue.

#17 of 127 Chris_Morris

Chris_Morris

    Screenwriter

  • 1,887 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 04 2002

Posted December 14 2002 - 02:06 PM

Crazy. Yet another reason for a "loser pays" legal system.

Chris

#18 of 127 Joe McKeown

Joe McKeown

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 139 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999

Posted December 14 2002 - 03:26 PM

It's hard enough to believe that there is someone dumb enough to try the suit, but there is a lawyer dumb enough to file it and press for class-action status. I wonder if he took the case on contingency?

OTOH, I do feel that attempting to drop every video into either "Fullscreen" or "Widescreen" makes this unnecessarily confusing for consumers. The path a movie takes to the end product makes a difference. -- I don't mind open-matte so much, but I can't abide Pan-and-scan.

Personally, I would like to see formats expressed as a percentage of the theatrical release. It would really clear things up when people see "67% of the theatrical release" on the boxes of P&S titles, or for that matter "115% of the theatrical release" for open matte (And don't check my math; I didn't do any.)
-- When someone asks you if you're a god, you say "YES"

my collection

#19 of 127 John Berggren

John Berggren

    Producer

  • 3,245 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 17 1999

Posted December 14 2002 - 04:13 PM

Quote:
Personally, I would like to see formats expressed as a percentage of the theatrical release. It would really clear things up when people see "67% of the theatrical release" on the boxes of P&S titles, or for that matter "115% of the theatrical release" for open matte (And don't check my math; I didn't do any.)


This doesn't work. It'd be like having a painting on a wall. A widescreen version would contain 100% of the painting, while an "open matte" version would contain 100% painting and 15% wall. Not 115% painting, which is impossible.
Support the fight against Multiple Sclerosis as I ride in the 2007 MS 150 in New Bern this September.

Be a Widescreen Advocate

#20 of 127 Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,456 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationBlairsville, GA, USA

Posted December 14 2002 - 04:49 PM

Well...

MGM doesn't really help much by creating incorrect examples of P&S vs widescreen on their covers and etc.

On my copy of Some Like It Hot, it says the 1.33:1 version would have cropped the sides. WRONG!

For the DVD of The Usual Suspects, it clearly makes the film seem like a Panavision film. WRONG!


However, the examples for scope/large format films are mostly correct...I have a feeling that these faked examples are one reason why they're being sued.





Forum Nav Content I Follow