Class action suit fun time !
January 28, 2005 10:54 AM Subscribe
Got certain DVD ? Join class action, get replacement ! Apparently MGM mislabeled (or simply sold ?) from 1998 to 2003 a few hundred DVD titles as Widescreen format while they were not really Widescreen. As one must respect MPAA they must respect our looking in this list to see if our dvd titles are in the list and our joining class action. Let's not be on the receiving end for a change ! (via HardOcp (SFW))
Finally getting see "A Fish Called Wanda" in widescreen. I was a little more irriated about the 4:3 perspective than I should have been, so this adds a little lift to my day!
The friendly robot hung up on me once, but then she understood the movie title the second time I said it. Just press "2" when the selections come up and don't bother listening to the whole instruction set.
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:04 AM on January 28, 2005
The friendly robot hung up on me once, but then she understood the movie title the second time I said it. Just press "2" when the selections come up and don't bother listening to the whole instruction set.
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:04 AM on January 28, 2005
Errr.
They did not misrepresent what format was on the disc, they misrepresented the gains gained or lost by picking widescreen versus full screen. I.e. showing a picture of a still frame with 40% missing data is misleading when a non-anormophic framing (1.85:1) kinda lends itself to 4:3 naturally and there is no loss side to side. Misleading advertising, the DVDs are still the same that they're "replacing", just the booklet is different.
Think of it more as a false advertising bit then a wrong product kinda thing.
For all sorts of definitions regarding Open Matte, aspect ratios, 1.85, 1.33, and more, I would start here and here.
Mr. Curley, realistically by watching Wanda full frame you saw *too much info*, and your widescreen content will essentially cut some of that out for you. Wanda was shot non-anormorphic, the vertical wasn't compressed, so to frame it as widescreen or theatre based they would add mattes or bars to the top and bottom of the screen.
I'm kinda lazy, so hopefully someone else will populate this thread with better examples and definitions. Or a link or two.
posted by cavalier at 11:22 AM on January 28, 2005
They did not misrepresent what format was on the disc, they misrepresented the gains gained or lost by picking widescreen versus full screen. I.e. showing a picture of a still frame with 40% missing data is misleading when a non-anormophic framing (1.85:1) kinda lends itself to 4:3 naturally and there is no loss side to side. Misleading advertising, the DVDs are still the same that they're "replacing", just the booklet is different.
Think of it more as a false advertising bit then a wrong product kinda thing.
For all sorts of definitions regarding Open Matte, aspect ratios, 1.85, 1.33, and more, I would start here and here.
Mr. Curley, realistically by watching Wanda full frame you saw *too much info*, and your widescreen content will essentially cut some of that out for you. Wanda was shot non-anormorphic, the vertical wasn't compressed, so to frame it as widescreen or theatre based they would add mattes or bars to the top and bottom of the screen.
I'm kinda lazy, so hopefully someone else will populate this thread with better examples and definitions. Or a link or two.
posted by cavalier at 11:22 AM on January 28, 2005
You'll get back a few bucks per DVD and the lawyers who are doing the suit will probably get ten per DVD
Which is worse, getting a little ripped off by MGM (hey, you've still got a DVD to watch in 4:3), or letting a bunch of lawyers pillage them for a few hundred million bucks, which you will pay for the next time you buy an MGM product?
posted by poppo at 11:24 AM on January 28, 2005
Which is worse, getting a little ripped off by MGM (hey, you've still got a DVD to watch in 4:3), or letting a bunch of lawyers pillage them for a few hundred million bucks, which you will pay for the next time you buy an MGM product?
posted by poppo at 11:24 AM on January 28, 2005
I got Breakin' 2: The Electric Boogaloo.
I'm totally in. (Seriously though, thats the only movie on that list I own.)
posted by Dr_Octavius at 11:29 AM on January 28, 2005
I'm totally in. (Seriously though, thats the only movie on that list I own.)
posted by Dr_Octavius at 11:29 AM on January 28, 2005
Mmmmm. Spend 3 hours checking my DVD collection against that list... or... I think I'll give myself a manicure instead.
posted by slackdog at 11:34 AM on January 28, 2005
posted by slackdog at 11:34 AM on January 28, 2005
when i saw the aviator on that list i did a double take. then i imdb'd it. it's this aviator. huh.
posted by Igor XA at 12:10 PM on January 28, 2005
posted by Igor XA at 12:10 PM on January 28, 2005
So wait a minute. Some moron didn't understand the concept of open matte so he sued MGM? As I read the complaint, the allegation is that between the "widescreen" and "fullscreen" versions the horizontal image size is identical, so he's claiming fraud, false advertising, and unfair competition. Uh huh. The film was shot full frame and was intended to be shown matted in theaters. It's still "widescreen" as far as the intended projected aspect ratio is concerned. Ever watch a "full-screen" version of an open-matte film? There's all kinds of crap in the frame that should not be there (like microphone booms, etc.) because it was intended to be matted when projected. Idiots.
posted by AstroGuy at 12:16 PM on January 28, 2005
posted by AstroGuy at 12:16 PM on January 28, 2005
Here's an informed discussion that argues that no information was actually removed from what appears on the DVDs; this is simply a question of labeling. (Link is via a slashdot article.)
posted by WestCoaster at 12:30 PM on January 28, 2005
posted by WestCoaster at 12:30 PM on January 28, 2005
As I read the complaint, the allegation is that between the "widescreen" and "fullscreen" versions the horizontal image size is identical, so he's claiming fraud, false advertising, and unfair competition.
I don't think that's it exactly. As I understand it, the descriptive booklet that came with each movie made false claims; that booklet is what this suit was based on. According to cavalier's first link:
A Fish Called Wanda was filmed in open matte with an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. Unfortunately, in the accompanying booklet MGM implied that AFCW was filmed anamorphically by showing a pan-and-scan versus widescreen example using a 2.35:1 image. To add further complications, the comparison image then placed a 1.33:1 overlay above the 2.35:1 image to “demonstrate” what was being lost during pan-and-scan.
There are two glaring issues here that bothered me. The first is the implication that the movie is 2.35:1. That is wrong because it's 1.85:1. The second is that the non-widescreen version of this movie is subjected to pan-and-scan. That is wrong because it's open-matte. So, MGM was claiming that the supposed pan-and-scan version of AFWC was actually losing 45% of the image. I might be militant, but that kind of blatant deception goes beyond militancy.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:37 PM on January 28, 2005
I don't think that's it exactly. As I understand it, the descriptive booklet that came with each movie made false claims; that booklet is what this suit was based on. According to cavalier's first link:
A Fish Called Wanda was filmed in open matte with an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. Unfortunately, in the accompanying booklet MGM implied that AFCW was filmed anamorphically by showing a pan-and-scan versus widescreen example using a 2.35:1 image. To add further complications, the comparison image then placed a 1.33:1 overlay above the 2.35:1 image to “demonstrate” what was being lost during pan-and-scan.
There are two glaring issues here that bothered me. The first is the implication that the movie is 2.35:1. That is wrong because it's 1.85:1. The second is that the non-widescreen version of this movie is subjected to pan-and-scan. That is wrong because it's open-matte. So, MGM was claiming that the supposed pan-and-scan version of AFWC was actually losing 45% of the image. I might be militant, but that kind of blatant deception goes beyond militancy.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:37 PM on January 28, 2005
Here's another link that demonstrates the open-matte-as-full-screen concept. I think I grabbed it off slashdot.
It's relevant because one of the examples of open matte is a scene from A Fish Called Wanda.
posted by flipper at 12:55 PM on January 28, 2005
It's relevant because one of the examples of open matte is a scene from A Fish Called Wanda.
posted by flipper at 12:55 PM on January 28, 2005
I hope the widescreen.org dood has a good bandwidth agreement.. :)
posted by cavalier at 12:57 PM on January 28, 2005
posted by cavalier at 12:57 PM on January 28, 2005
aw I knew I should of bought more DVDs when they got popular. Now I'm kicking myself for missing out on this oportunity!
posted by FeetOfClay at 1:10 PM on January 28, 2005
posted by FeetOfClay at 1:10 PM on January 28, 2005
As I understand it they took pan-and-scan versions and chopped them down to letterbox on only few titles.
I have eight DVD's on the list including The Last Waltz and, to be honest, I don't see any problems.
The lawsuit may be worthy but unless they replace the product with the correct aspect ratio it's hardly worth it.
Maybe they'll get it right for the forthcoming High Definition DVD's.
posted by Rashomon at 5:38 PM on January 28, 2005
I have eight DVD's on the list including The Last Waltz and, to be honest, I don't see any problems.
The lawsuit may be worthy but unless they replace the product with the correct aspect ratio it's hardly worth it.
Maybe they'll get it right for the forthcoming High Definition DVD's.
posted by Rashomon at 5:38 PM on January 28, 2005
I was surprised to see how few MGM titles I actually own. But I'm not surprised.
I've been railing against the studio since they wrecked Walter Hill's 'Supernova' and the way that they looted the original Stargate' franchise to create the most boring and long-lived science-fiction show on television. But that's just me.
posted by vhsiv at 6:26 PM on January 28, 2005
I've been railing against the studio since they wrecked Walter Hill's 'Supernova' and the way that they looted the original Stargate' franchise to create the most boring and long-lived science-fiction show on television. But that's just me.
posted by vhsiv at 6:26 PM on January 28, 2005
So, we get either a new, properly aspected and labeled dvd [or] $7.10 each, after we go to the trouble to ship the defects back to the claims administrator? How many of us bought these dvds for $7.10? Closer to $17.10. This sucks either way. It should be full manufacturer's suggested retail price refund, or both 7 bucks cash and dvd replacement-just for the hassle.
Apparently lawyers must eat and scum-sucking doesn't provide enough nourishment. /corplawyerbash-rant
posted by HyperBlue at 7:13 PM on January 28, 2005
Apparently lawyers must eat and scum-sucking doesn't provide enough nourishment. /corplawyerbash-rant
posted by HyperBlue at 7:13 PM on January 28, 2005
As I understand it they took pan-and-scan versions and chopped them down to letterbox on only few titles.
You've got to read the comments above more carefully. Neither the widescreen or the full-screen are pan-and-scan. It's just that the full-screen ones show top and bottom parts of the film that were supposed to be masked off in the theater.
So HyperBlue, there's no reason to get replacement discs if you have the widescreen, and if you have the fullscreen I suppose you could just use your DVD's zoom feature to cut off any offending boom mics (you'd basically be panning and scanning the film yourself).
posted by hyperizer at 9:22 PM on January 28, 2005
You've got to read the comments above more carefully. Neither the widescreen or the full-screen are pan-and-scan. It's just that the full-screen ones show top and bottom parts of the film that were supposed to be masked off in the theater.
So HyperBlue, there's no reason to get replacement discs if you have the widescreen, and if you have the fullscreen I suppose you could just use your DVD's zoom feature to cut off any offending boom mics (you'd basically be panning and scanning the film yourself).
posted by hyperizer at 9:22 PM on January 28, 2005
According to The Digital Bits the whole MGM lawsuit is ridiculous. They say the DVD's are fine and they have image scans to prove it.
posted by Rashomon at 10:11 PM on January 30, 2005
posted by Rashomon at 10:11 PM on January 30, 2005
« Older Spongebob joins an all-star cast | Levitated Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Arch Stanton at 11:00 AM on January 28, 2005