The MGM Lawsuit

[jrs]

A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of consumers who purchased MGM widescreen DVD's between December 1st of 1998 and September 8th of 2003. The suit alleges that MGM was less than honest in their packaging when representing the true aspect ration of the film in the box, opting to crop the top and bottom of pan-and-scam versions instead of encoding true widescreen transfers. According to MGMDVDSettlement.com (http://mgmdvdsettlement.com/) , if you purchased one of these 500+ titles (http://mgmdvdsettlement.com/eligible.pdf) within those dates you may be entitled to either a DVD swap of your choice or a cash refund of $7.10. Hardly a gold-mine, although it might be worth getting involved to trade that copy of Dirty Work you found in the $5 bin a few years ago for something a little bit more... shall we say... watchable.


Source: Filmrot (http://www.filmrot.com/main.php)

[Holden Pike]

To be clear, the lawsuit isn't about the movies themselves not being properly formatted. It's about the language that used to be on the back of MGM DVDs, that the folks who put this suit together found confusing and misleading. The suit doesn't alledge that any of those movies aren't presented in the proper aspect ratios.

What the legal case actually involves is alleged misreprensation in advertising by MGM: the false claim that the "widescreen" DVD versions of 1.85:1 films provided "up to 50% more image" than "standard" DVDs. This is indeed false, since they actually show less image. It is true for 2.35:1 films, for which the "standard" non-widescreen video transfers normally involved the "pan and scan" process, cutting off at least 40% of the image on the sides. The point is that the widescreen DVDs show the CORRECT theatrical image....but that's not how the packaging used to be worded.

Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to understand the difference or be unable to investigate for even ten minutes on the internet and find out what is what. And you'd have to be even bigger idiots to bring a lawsuit over such a thing...but alas, here we are.

Here's a summary of the case from the site of the legal firm representing the plaintiffs, Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Pearson L.L.P.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., et al.

On December 13, 2002 WCC&P filed a class action complaint, Eallonardo v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC286950. The complaint alleges that MGM's advertisements that "widescreen" DVDs provide up to 50% more image than MGM's standard screen DVDs is false and/or misleading. Plaintiffs allege that the "widescreen" DVDs show the same width of the film as the "standard screen" DVD of the same film. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the unfair competition laws, false advertising laws, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and committed fraud.

In short, these titles do not have an "aspect ratio problem." Instead, they have (or rather had) an advertising problem, and the DVD-buying public has an ongoing education problem.

[jrs]

:)

[Tazz]

I only have one MGM DVD, which is "Dead Like Me" [Season 1] and that's not even on the list.

[Kong: The Sequel]

Just grabbed an MGM DVD off the shelf (Fargo - a 5 year old DVD) and took a look-see. It says, "Depending on how the film was shot, the widescreen format presents up to 50% more image...," (emphasis mine) and goes on to mention the black bars and other whatnot.

Seems clear to me....

[Tacitus]

Just grabbed an MGM DVD off the shelf (Fargo - a 5 year old DVD) and took a look-see. It says, "Depending on how the film was shot, the widescreen format presents up to 50% more image...," (emphasis mine) and goes on to mention the black bars and other whatnot.

Seems clear to me....


hmmmm I just checked out my copy (R2) of Fargo (1.85:1) and it doesn't mention anything - none of my MGM DVDs on the list do. It must be an R1 thang as 'Widescreen' is only explained on a few discs I bought overseas.

I can see the poor sap who bought Boxing Helena being far too embarrassed to ask for a refund though. ;)