MGM Free DVD deal!

Discussion in 'DVD' started by TheBat, Dec 31, 2004.

  1. TheBat

    TheBat Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 1999
    Messages:
    3,087
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Real Name:
    Jacob
    There’s a class action lawsuit against MGM claiming their explanation of widescreen vs. fullscreen on their DVD cases is misleading. Anyone who's bought an MGM DVD since 1998 can participate. You get a new DVD from them as part of the settlement. www.mgmdvdsettlement.com or 1-800-285-2168


    JACOB
     
  2. GrantM

    GrantM Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2001
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    on that website it says:
    Class Members who submit timely and valid Claim Forms may exchange each Eligible DVD for (i) a new MGM DVD from a list of 325 titles or (ii) $7.10

    But I suppose if there is a dvd in that list of eligible ones that you don't want anymore you could sell it back for $7.10
     
  3. Eric Peterson

    Eric Peterson Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2001
    Messages:
    2,959
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That link explains absolutely nothing as to what the lawsuit is about?

    Are people complaining that they bought widescreen on accident?, fullscreen on accident?, they don't know what they bought??????

    I'm confused.

    I own several of the titles on that list, but they're exactly what I wanted (Widescreen!)
     
  4. Francois Caron

    Francois Caron Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 1997
    Messages:
    2,156
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    610
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Real Name:
    François Caron
    Here's the notice. http://www.mgmdvdsettlement.com/notice.pdf



    They're talking about DVD releases where the full-frame version is actually an open-matte transfer of the original source material, and not a pan & scan transfer.

    Personally, I blame the movie industry for this confusion. They originally created the mess by releasing movies on home video in their incorrect aspect ratio. Today they can no longer properly explain aspect ratios to their clients, creating a lot more confusion than originally anticipated.
     
  5. Aaron Silverman

    Aaron Silverman Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 1999
    Messages:
    11,239
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Florida
    Real Name:
    Aaron Silverman


    Please. Somebody kill me now. Seriously. [​IMG]
     
  6. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,596
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    I don't see how MGM was wrong in their description, other than the image showing the difference between 1.33:1 and 1.85:1.

    They said up to 50%, which is true. In fact, most of the time, open matte transfers still cut "ribbons" off the sides of the image.

    More image doesn't mean it's supposed to be there automatically! This needs to be stressed to no end!
     
  7. Colby

    Colby Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Location:
    USA
    Real Name:
    Colby
    MGM gets this, and yet Disney gets away with calling Fantasia "uncut"?
     
  8. Paul D G

    Paul D G Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2001
    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    hmm. Some of the Eligible DVDs listed only came out as widescreen: UHF, Koyaansiqatsi, Powaqatsi, etc.

    -paul
     
  9. Vince Maskeeper

    Vince Maskeeper Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 1999
    Messages:
    6,499
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    But were open matte full frame on VHS-- but I doubt the plaintiffs named titles by name- it probably was just any film labelled as "widescreen" released beteen x date and y date.

    -V
     
  10. John Hodson

    John Hodson Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    4,533
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Location:
    Bolton, Lancashire
    Real Name:
    John
    Over at DVD Talk, Glenn Erikson has this to say:

    "An interesting public notice appeared in the LA Times last week, of a class-action suit against MGM for, of all things, putting those inaccurate widescreen graphic representations in their old DVD inserts, the ones that often gave the impression that widescreen movies were much wider. The notice is unclear whether the suit was won or lost or is being settled preemptively, but there's mention of an exchange of seven dollars or a replacement disc for certain titles purchased between 1998 and 2004.

    "In my opinion, this is the kind of thing that makes DVD companies distrustful of consumer gripers and web critics. The annoyingly inaccurate diagrams were obviously meant to be generically informative and not literally accurate. That it could mislead more informed fans and give a false impression of the image on the disc is true, and was worth noting in DVD reviews. But from the facts presented here, I doubt that any real harm was done anyone. If the lawsuit thinks it can hold DVD companies accountable to strict truth-in-advertising for the often fuzzy facts of how movies should be presented on DVD - aspect ratios, "original versions", etc., it's a joke. To avoid future hassles, the companies could easily use a lawsuit like this to simply add a 'formatted to fit your TV screen' disclaimer, put everything out in a one-size-fits-all flat format, and be done with it."
     
  11. Brian Kidd

    Brian Kidd Screenwriter
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2000
    Messages:
    1,985
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Did you see how much the lawyers would be paid if this settlement is approved? I refuse to have anything to do with it. This ia an abuse of the legal system and the Plaintiffs should have their citizenship revoked along with their reproductive organs. No sense in allowing them to multiply.
     
  12. Eric Peterson

    Eric Peterson Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2001
    Messages:
    2,959
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0


    This was the first thought that struck me when I read the first thread in this post. MOST of the studios are trying to do the right thing now (OAR, cleaned up prints, etc...), but if customers are going to start suing them over trivial shit such as this, then what reason have they to continue doing the right thing? If a studio was repeatedly selling P&S movies and claiming that they were widescreen, I could maybe see a boycott or something along those lines, but a lawsuit is simply frivilous and uncalled for.
     
  13. Jeff Jacobson

    Jeff Jacobson Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why doesn't someone sue Lion's Gate for releasing edited episodes on their ALF DVD. Didn't they even inflate the running time to cover up the fact that the episodes were edited?
     
  14. WarrenM

    WarrenM Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    May 29, 2004
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If they're going to sue MGM over something trivial and stupid like this, then somebody should sue TVA Films for advertising on the back cover that the "The Saddest Music in the World" DVD was widescreen when in fact, it wasn't.
     
  15. John Stone

    John Stone Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    While we're at it, my fellow widescreen TV owners should sue all the studios for putting the "This film has been modified from its original format: it has been formatted to fit your screen." notice on pan and scan/open matte DVDs. I have a 1.78:1 television, so that is a blatantly false statement.

    I'm kidding, of course. This whole thing is ridiculous. [​IMG]
     
  16. Paul D G

    Paul D G Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2001
    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
  17. Damin J Toell

    Damin J Toell Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,762
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Real Name:
    Damin J. Toell


    They're not looking to fight this out if they're putting this settlement together.

    DJ
     
  18. Glenn Overholt

    Glenn Overholt Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 1999
    Messages:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok, I think we've missed something somewhere. I pulled out a few of them and they really look ok. Then I noticed up in the post by John, and the article quoted refers to the inserts - not the films!

    I've tossed all of the inserts that didn't go with the movie, so I have no idea what they were. I'm not about to give up 26 of my movies - because frankly, there isn't anything in their collection that I want that I don't already own.

    If this suit really is at the point where they are counting disks then it must have won on a fine legal point.

    ...and John, I'd love to sue them over the 'this film has been formatted...'. I've got a WS set too, and I don't think that message is at all funny.

    Glenn
     
  19. Will Krupp

    Will Krupp Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    1,947
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Real Name:
    Will
    I have those old MGM inserts (I first noticed them on the old James Bond discs) and the pictures on the insert make it look like the widescreen has about a 3:1 aspect ratio versus the full screen. It DOES exagerate the width of the widescreen picture, but how would someone prove they were materially damaged by this??
     
  20. Will Krupp

    Will Krupp Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    1,947
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Real Name:
    Will


    These were the inserts that went with the movies. You can see the widescreen vs. pan and scan in the lower right hand corner when the insert is opened up.

    The more I read about this, the madder it makes me. This is truly the definition of "nuisance lawsuit." I don't understand how these inserts can be qualified as "false advertising." The nature of advertising is to get you to buy something, but these inserts were INSIDE the package and not even visible until you already bought and opened it.

    There isn't one person who shelled out their money BECAUSE of these inserts....so again I can't see how anybody can claim material damage. Am I missing something here?
     

Share This Page