An open plea to MGM to STOP releasing FULL FRAME ONLY discs of WIDESCREEN titles. All members help! (1 Viewer)

[Chet_F]

"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."

Let me teach you a little something about business. When you sell something you don't go to one store and ask the guy behind the counter what he sells most. You look at your demographic, i.e. the US. Then you look at what people prefer based on FACT not opinion. The FACT is that MOST people prefer Widescreen. Look at any sales for a DVD from week to week. The Widescreen outsells the fullscreen 95% of the time. Take those numbers and mutliply them buy the 1000's and the difference becomes HUGE. WE are NOT in the minority. WE are the MAJORITY!!! The facts back it up and unfortunately I have a logical mind. So opinions aside....look at the facts.

 

[John Goodwin]

MGM,i have money in my bank account.
If you can release titles in both formats and not just in full frame,then some of that money could have been yours.

:frowning:

 

[streeter]

The issue is that MGM doesn't want to invest in producing new widescreen transfers when they can use their old full screen (and sometimes non-anamorphic ws) transfers from VHS and laser.

I don't think that MGM is releasing full screen-only transfers because they sell more - they don't. They think that there isn't enough interest in these titles to warrant the expense of creating a new widescreen transfer.

Hopefully MGM will soon realize that there are too many customers who won't buy MARed DVDs.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

I don't think that MGM is releasing full screen-only transfers because they sell more - they don't. They think that there isn't enough interest in these titles to warrant the expense of creating a new widescreen transfer.

If they don't think there is enough interest in a title to pay for the widescreen transfer, then why release a title to DVD at all? Especially if it is a title created in 2.35:1, that NO one will buy P&S!

I do have to give credit where credit is due. I am anxiosly awaiting November 25th so that I can finally watch Chitty Chitty Bang Bang in it's OAR!

No OAR = No Sale! Please release all your films, even the B titles in thier OAR!

 

[Matt Pelham]

Said it before, I'll say it again:

"No OAR = No Sale!" Plain and simple.

As a regular purchaser of library titles (including those from MGM) I never have and never will purchase titles that have been formatted to fit 4:3 televisions. Period.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Really, the title of the thread needs to be changed to read "...STOP releasing FULL FRAME ONLY discs of WIDESCREEN titles." Making movies that SHOULD be full frame into widescreen abortions (like the Gone With the Wind widescreen reissue in the 1960s) is just as bad as cutting off the sides of a widescreen movie.

Oh, and I don't buy non-OAR discs. I'm buying all of the 8/26 MGM Midnight Movie releases because they're done right. I'm not buying any MGM discs that are not OAR. End of story. Some other studio will get my DVD dollar for those (e.g., Remo Williams, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang to name just two I would have bought from MGM had they been properly released).

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I'll change the title. Good suggestion.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

The term "Full Frame" needs to be dropped altogether- it's either modified ratio or the correct one. (MGM was actually using the term "Pan And Scan" on their first discs but now uses "Standard", which only serves to mislead and confuse.)

 

[WillG]

Pledging my support of the cause! MGM has not violated a title I am passionate about...Yet..But any MAR only release is UNACCEPTABLE. I don't care how obsucre the title is. And, as may have pointed out the logic is skewed. The more obscure a title is, the more likely it has a cult following that cares about its OAR

 

[Adam_Reiter]

The only way MGM will respond is when they are hit in the pocketbook. Afterall, it all comes down to the cold hard CASHOLA! Hopefully, all of their Pan and Scan / Full Frame releases will die a horrible and withering death. First the $9.99 sales. Then the $5.88 Wal-Mart bins. Then the "Get this movie free when you buy this other WIDESCEEN Movie" promo's. Then given away for free to employee's because it's just plain ol' plastic junk.

NO OAR = NO SALE!

 

[Dmitry]

Have talked to MGM recently and they seem
to take great offense to anything mean spirited

So it's OK for them to hurt our feelings by releasing P&S transfers of the movies we love — a mean spirited action, if you ask me but it's not OK for us to complain? I always try to be very civil in my complains, especially if I post them on this board (email I send to MGM as individual is a different story) but the lack of respect for the movies on the part of MGM is very upsetting :frowning:

 

[Peter Mazur]

I want to echo what has been said already and say that if a title is non-oar and non-anamorphic it is no sale for me.

You have done a great job recently with lesser known titles like: The Rachel Papers, Secret Admirer, The Last American Virgin, Blame It On Rio, etc... I believe ALL titles deserve this treatment.

 

[Rob P S]

NO OAR = NO SALE!

 

[Randy B A]

I have passed on quite a few non OAR discs from MGM lately.

It has to be OAR and 16x9 or no sale.

 

[Steve_Knutzen]

There's not much I want to say that hasn't already been said. MGM, you're alienating the core audiences of these films by issuing as modified releases. All titles deserve in their proper aspect ratios whether their hundred-million dollar grossing mega-movies or obscure cult classics.

I'll echo the battle hymn

NO OAR, NO SALE

 

[Bill Burns]

My first, much earlier post was made before this new thread was created, so I'll expand here to suit the topic:


Respectful Criticisms / Policy Suggestions

1. All films should be presented in their OAR.

2. All films should include their original theatrical sound mixes, or rather the best these can be approximated on DVD (mono mixes should be presented as mono, stereo as stereo, etc.). Remixes are fine as a supplement/alternative, but not at the expense of the original.

3. 1.66:1 films have been demonstrated to both technical expert and consumer satisfaction time and time again to benefit from anamorphic enhancement. All 1.66:1 films and wider should be anamorphically enhanced. I have passed on a number of titles presented in widescreen but without anamorphic enhancement, and will continue to do so (this is occasionally a sign of the use of an old master; even when it isn't, with so many beloved films out there and finances sufficiently limited that I cannot buy every single one of them, I always go to those widescreen presentations which have been enhanced first, and only own a handful on unenhanced widescreen titles on the format).

4. All films that originate, natively, as large format should be sourced for DVD from large format elements when these survive in, or have been restored to, good shape. Doing so best preserves the visual character of the film as photographed, and yields results notably superior to reduction source mastering.

5. When possible, transferring to high definition tape and downconverting the signal for DVD encoding is always appreciated, as this yields results, given proper mastering protocols, very much superior to standard definition film to tape transfers.

6. 3D films should be presented in both field sequential 3D (Slingshot has a well-received viewing system on the market, utilized most prominently at the moment by IMAX 3D films on disc) and flat 2D. Those who do not wish to buy the glasses, or those using displays with which the glasses do not work well, may watch the 2D version, while those who wish to buy the viewing equipment and find the results to their satisfaction may watch the 3D version.

A number of films have been released, reportedly, to VHS and other home video formats in field sequential 3D. The argument that DVD's resolution is too low for this form of film presentation thus does not hold water (fans continue to cherish these older releases). If MGM controls any 3D product, I strongly urge them to take a leadership role over the decisions made by their competitor studios and issue their 3D product in field sequential 3D for the collector, and flat 2D for the mainstream (perhaps as a flipper disc).

7. Serious effort should be made by the studio (and all studios) to ensure that edge enhancement, in the form of edge halos and/or edge outlines to the screen right of and/or around objects against bright backgrounds, is eliminated from future transfers for disc. This distracting anomaly is not inherent in the telecine process, it is a product of image manipulation, and many studios have released films in which it is completely or all but completely absent, to great visual effect. MGM's release of Die Another Day, a brand new film, has notable EE in the form of edge outlines, so this is not a problem plaguing older, visually troublesome films alone. All films should be transferred to disc with as little alteration from their original visual character as possible. EE is a noteworthy distraction which I find annoying even at 32" (anamorphic); many with front projection displays, understandably, find transfers with moderate to heavy EE all but unwatchable.


Studio Endorsements (Policy and Product)

8. May I offer MGM congratulations on several wonderful policies they currently have in place, including a wonderful pricing structure which I believe sets an example for the industry, a commitment to quality cases and cover art, and a diversity of released product that also sets a fine example for the industry. Personally, I most (but by no means exclusively) value the films of old Hollywood, particularly silents and early sound films -- I know WB has purchased much of MGM's classic library, but among classics still controlled by MGM for home video, I would eagerly encourage the continued release of films of this era. A far greater percentage of them, when considered against "modern" films, to my eye and heart demonstrate a tremendous and timeless value, including many of those which were made quickly and without any intended permanence. The Hollywood System of this time yielded a remarkable output which continues to enrich the world.


In Conclusion

All of the above is directed at MGM in this thread, but 1-7, and the classic film reflections of 8, may be considered hopeful feedback for the entire industry. As I've said elsewhere, the DVD format is a remarkable resource for film lovers, and if these few but persistent kinks could be overcome, it would be downright perfect (aside from video and audio resolution gains promised in HD-DVD under whatever brand name it'll appear, which itself, under the best of the currently proposed specs, still won't offer the full image resolution of modern 35mm film); DVD is a format which is already a shining beacon in the history of home video (and indeed home technology in general), and with a little effort it will be, in many ways, unbeatable by what comes next -- the standard to be imitated, rather than a good effort to be bested.

 

[Clint B]

Dear MGM,

I've supported your company with my wallet for many years with previous DVD releases that were released in their original aspect ratio. I will continue to support your company by purchasing titles that I like--and that are in their original aspect ratio. Some of the titles that are to be released in modified aspect ratio sounded appealing to me, but because they aren't going to be released in their original aspect ratio, the MGM company has lost at least one sale from me (and apparently, many others). In the future, please ensure that ALL releases are released in their original aspect ratio. If the original aspect ratio is widescreen (which will usually be the case with most movies since the 1950s), then please add anamorphic enhancement to those titles as well. Thank you.

 

[Brian Kidd]

MGM has always been great for releasing catalog product at a great price. However, I will never buy another MAR disc from them or anyone else. The time for fullscreen is past.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

In this day and age, OAR should be manditory, not just a "special feature". What is so hard about matting 1.37:1 movies to their intended 1.66:1/1.85:1 ratio? MGM do it with everything else, why stop at their budget titles, which are actually not much cheaper than their Midnite Movies range?


Gordy

 

[Jon Martin]

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.

Uhh, no. REAL MEN is a stupid little John Ritter, Jim Belushi (I think he was the co-star) comedy. The people who would be interested in it are the types who shop at Wal Mart and would choose full frame over widescreen anyway.

And why is MGM the one being criticized in this thread? Look at Artisan, Disney, other companies. They release a larger percentage of full frame titles than MGM does.

MGM is one of the biggest distributors which is why they are singled out, but if you look at percentages, they are one of the best when it comes to releasing widescreen titles.