Bizarre wide screen lawsuit (1 Viewer)

[Jesse Skeen]

It seems that their latest releases are labeled "Full Screen" with no explanation underneath, and no regard to whether it's a pan and scan version of a 2.35 movie, or something that was shot for video in 1.33 and is actually SUPPOSED to be shown that way. Before, there were indicators underneath saying "Modified to fit your screen" or "Theatrical release format." I'm going to sue them for withholding information.
Oh yeah- don't they often have pictures on the cover of scenes that DON'T appear in the actual movie? I'm gonna sue them for that too!!

 

[Christian Preischl]

I just read the notice on the class action web site. If I understand it correctly you can only get in on the action if you live in the US. Yet the list of eliglible titles also contains films which aren't even available in widescreen in the US, only in other regions (e.g. Moonstruck, The Dark Half, Remo Williams) and therefore can't really have a misrepresenting description of what widescreen is. Am I missing something, apart from the fact that his whole thing is ridiculous?

Chris

 

[Brandon Conway]

Here's a perfect visual example of the issue at hand:
First, the WS vs. FS diagram:

Second, the Full Screen version of the actual film shot:

Third, the Widescreen version of the same:

Now, you and I know that this is simply the shot without and then with mattes. But looking at it from a average joe consumer who has barely jumped on the Widescreen bandwagon and doesn't understand open matte, I could see how they would be a bit misled. What MGM did was take an on set production photo and pass it off as the film image. They muddied the waters and made things more confusing for the average, non-HTF enthusiast consumer.
Now, would I sue over it? No. But in a world where everything is sued over, I'm not surprised someone did.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Damn!. That is misleading.
Most of my MGM discs feature a picture of a stylized yellow and orange M in the widescreen/standard box

Ghostworld is offered in the widescreen format enabling you to experience the picture exactly as it was originally shown in theaters. Depending on how the film was originally shot, the widescreen format presents up to 50% more image to the left and right of the screen than the standard "pan&scan" process, thus preserving the director's vision of each scene. Black bars at the top and bottom are normal for this format.
The widescreen version of this MGM DVD has been encoded to take full advantage of the high resolution widescreen television sets, When viewed on this type of television, the film's picture resolution will be significantly enhanced.

 

[WillG]

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.

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your post. For some reason I thought it to mean that you were wondering if the lawsuit would promt Universal to release some of their P&S only films properly.

Still, it would be nice to be able go after studios that are releasing MAR versions of film. But, I suppose there is no legal obligation for a studio to release a film in its OAR, but there should be. I wish more directors would get personally involved in how their films are released. Look at Michael Mann, he has a no Pan and Scan clause in his contracts. Even the VHS versions of his recent films are Widescreen only.

 

[Robert Harris]

This entire situation makes no sense, as the list of affected titles is incorrect as it stands.

I don't believe that M-G-M has done anything wrong.

It merely seems that the judge involved will need an education before his Court can make any logical decision.

What a waste of time and effort.

RAH

 

[Steve Tannehill]

I believe that the issue is as Brandon states above.

There was a graphic back in the days that MGM included booklets with their DVD's that showed cropping "widescreen" on the sides to achieve pan&scan. This image was often based on a matted widescreen image, so technically it was incorrect to crop it on the sides in that illustration.

A little education would have helped here prior to going legal--both in the MGM graphics department, and to the consumer.

- Steve

 

[Brandon Conway]

What it all boils down to is this: MGM lied. They said they created the Standard/Full Screen image of films like The Princess Bride by Pan & Scan, but they didn't. They opened the mattes.

Again, we here at the HTF understand that the matting is a good thing, but your average consumer is uneducated about such things. The graphic is 100% incorrect about what is done to a matted film when made into a Full Screen presentation.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

What it all boils down to is this: MGM lied.

That's a little harsh. MGM got it wrong. That does not constitute a lie in my book.

- Steve

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm afraid that "one size" does not fit all in this situation.

"Open Matte" is not "Open Matte."

One cannot simply "open the mattes" on a film and release. The film, in many cases, still needs image manipulation.

I recall reading a letter from an insensed buyer of the original Back to the Future, in which they insisted that Universal was incorrectly formatting the film in comparing the flat version with the wide screen laserdisc.

This individual took them to task because a number of shots of the flat version were panned and scanned (out of necessity), exposing more the top and bottom in most shots, but cropping the sides in others.

M-G-M has not "lied" about anything. There is no way to explain the machinations of pan & scan and widescreen while comparing the two, in a simple drawing on the back of a DVD package.

There are certain things in life that should be assumed, but are not. Anyone who has actually read the manual delivered with a new automobile will find that a large percentage covers items such as a warning not to drive the vehicle underwater, while asleep, or with one leg hanging out of the door.

It sounds as if these individuals are creating problems for M-G-M not about the wide screen versions, but about the flat versions of films.

Attorneys will shortly have a fifty page book contained in each DVD package with warnings...

"Do not ingest!"

Someone will "ingest" and then sue because there was no definition of the word "ingest" in multiple languages, with diagrams.

My feeling was then, as it is now. These people need to get a life.

 

[Pat Frank]

So... the only issue here is how the studio went about converting some 1.85/2.35 movies to fit onto 1.33 TV screens without the ugly letterboxing effect? That's it?

So... why are we calling this a "wide screen lawsuit"? Isn't it really a "how to make big rectangular movies fit onto small square screens lawsuit"? (grin)

Anyway, maybe MGM was a bit off in its labelling, but I'm gonna have a hard time losing sleep over the misleading of people who are too stupid to realize you can't fit a square peg in a round hole.

(Or rather, I guess you CAN fit a square peg into a round hole, if the square peg is small enough, but you won't touch the sides, and... oh never mind!!)

 

[Mitch Stevens]

So what are these "replacements" then? According to what I've read, MGM will be sending out "real" widescreen versions of their films (as opposed to pan & scan matted down versions) to people who want to exchange them.

 

[Gary Burdick]

The amount of confusion and ignorance being spread over the internet by people posting "MGM Widescreen DVD's are really cropped pan & scan" threads is both scary and sad.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

M-G-M has not "lied" about anything. There is no way to explain the machinations of pan & scan and widescreen while comparing the two, in a simple drawing on the back of a DVD package.

Amen, sir. Unfortunately, Bubba Wal Mart (a.k.a. Joe Six Pack) got confused and had access to attorneys and a gullible judge.

Now the real question is... how many people who actually understand widescreen will take advantage of the class to dump some undesirable titles?

- Steve

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

The amount of confusion and ignorance being spread over the internet by people posting "MGM Widescreen DVD's are really cropped pan & scan" threads is both scary and sad.

I know what you mean. I've sent emails to most of the major sites that have posted this news. These are the sites that have used the wording "MGM Widescreen DVD's are really cropped pan & scan. To get a true widescreen DVD, join the class action." Sadly most of the sites replied back, "if there is nothing wrong with the DVD's, why would MGM settle. You don't settle lawsuits that you are right about." The can't seem to get it around their head that the lawsuit is about a graphic and some text and not the actual DVD.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

:rolleyes
What a maroon! I mean when I found out about Super 35, I was pissed (was not on the forum at that time to gain knowledge) but I certaintly never considered suing someone over it, that's just the stupidest thing I can conceive of.
I am too OAR-war weary to even get into another debate about educating people on OAR, i've given up even trying. However I will say that some people need to sit down and take the time to research something before they make an ass out of himself in front of the world.
Let the fool-screen lovers stay in their end of the pool...the shallow end.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Um, yes, MGM did lie. They used an on set production photo and claimed it was a shot of the film. It wasn't. You certainly aren't gonna tell me that that photo of The Princess Bride in the diagram is the truth. Not truth = falsehood. Intentionally not telling the truth = a lie. Pretty straightforward.

A big lie? Hardly. I know their intention was to simplify the WS vs. FS differences for consumers. Unfortunately, their cutting of corners has in the long run caused more confusion than was previously the case. If MGM had simply explained open matte the same way other studios have ("This film is presented in a matted widescreen format which preserves the Original Aspect Ratio...") we would never be having this discussion. But a spade is a spade.

A little harsh? Not trying to be harsh. Remember, in that particular post I was summarizing.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Hmmmm, doesn't apply to those outside the United States, even though I probably bought from Amazon, one of the "retail defendants".
Also, reading the Notice of settlement, it says that later on, the Court will award the plaintiffs' counsels legal fees, not to exceed US$2.7 million. Nice chunk of change for a nonsense lawsuit, eh? :rolleyes

 

[Parker Clack]

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

Exactly.

Parker

 

[DaveB]

I see your point... :|