MGM DVD Settlement - anyone get anything?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by PenGuhWin, Jul 15, 2005.

  1. PenGuhWin

    PenGuhWin Guest

    Months ago, I mailed in a half dozen or so discs in the MGM DVD
    settlement, and haven't heard a word (much less received any
    replacement discs). It seems the settlement was approved in May... has
    anyone received any replacement discs from MGM?
     
    PenGuhWin, Jul 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. PenGuhWin wrote:
    > Months ago, I mailed in a half dozen or so discs in the MGM DVD
    > settlement, and haven't heard a word (much less received any
    > replacement discs). It seems the settlement was approved in May... has
    > anyone received any replacement discs from MGM?


    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

    Yeah, right.



    John

    --


    Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
     
    The Man Behind The Curtain, Jul 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. PenGuhWin

    Tarkus Guest

    On 7/15/2005 6:23:58 AM, PenGuhWin wrote:

    > Months ago, I mailed in a half dozen or so discs in the MGM DVD
    > settlement, and haven't heard a word (much less received any
    > replacement discs). It seems the settlement was approved in May... has
    > anyone received any replacement discs from MGM?


    Was that the one that was simply about packaging being slightly
    misleading?
    --
    "There Is No Gene For The Human Spirit."

    Now playing: the radio.
     
    Tarkus, Jul 15, 2005
    #3
  4. PenGuhWin

    Guest

    PenGuhWin <> wrote:
    } Months ago, I mailed in a half dozen or so discs in the MGM DVD
    } settlement, and haven't heard a word (much less received any
    } replacement discs). It seems the settlement was approved in May... has
    } anyone received any replacement discs from MGM?

    I returned one disk. I haven't gotten anything either.
    I did some web searching and found no news since the settlement in May.

    --

    Frank Ball
     
    , Jul 15, 2005
    #4
  5. PenGuhWin

    JMK Guest

    I talked to them a couple of days ago. The settlement has been
    approved. You should get your refund checks and/or replacement DVDs by
    the end of August at the latest. As I posted here in some detail
    months ago, this case was NOT (simply) about mislabelled or
    misleadlingly described DVDs. There were DVDs with incorrect aspect
    ratios manufactured.

    The Truth About Frances Farmer:
    http://hometown.aol.com/jmkauffman/sheddinglight.html
     
    JMK, Jul 15, 2005
    #5
  6. PenGuhWin

    3W Guest

    "PenGuhWin" <> wrote in message
    news:150720050923589409%...
    > Months ago, I mailed in a half dozen or so discs in the MGM DVD
    > settlement, and haven't heard a word (much less received any
    > replacement discs). It seems the settlement was approved in May... has
    > anyone received any replacement discs from MGM?


    I hope it was sent as certified mail.
     
    3W, Jul 16, 2005
    #6
  7. PenGuhWin

    PenGuhWin Guest

    In article <>, JMK
    <> wrote:

    > I talked to them a couple of days ago. The settlement has been
    > approved. You should get your refund checks and/or replacement DVDs by
    > the end of August at the latest. As I posted here in some detail
    > months ago, this case was NOT (simply) about mislabelled or
    > misleadlingly described DVDs. There were DVDs with incorrect aspect
    > ratios manufactured.
    >
    > The Truth About Frances Farmer:
    > http://hometown.aol.com/jmkauffman/sheddinglight.html


    Thank you for the update :).
     
    PenGuhWin, Jul 17, 2005
    #7
  8. PenGuhWin

    Jay G. Guest

    On 15 Jul 2005 13:25:51 -0700, JMK wrote:

    > I talked to them a couple of days ago. The settlement has been
    > approved. You should get your refund checks and/or replacement DVDs by
    > the end of August at the latest. As I posted here in some detail
    > months ago, this case was NOT (simply) about mislabelled or
    > misleadlingly described DVDs. There were DVDs with incorrect aspect
    > ratios manufactured.


    None had an incorrect aspect ratio (unless you're counting the 4x3
    version). All the DVDs were correctly framed for widescreen, showing the
    full and correct theatrical image.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Jul 18, 2005
    #8
  9. PenGuhWin

    JMK Guest

    Sorry, you're incorrect, at least from the information the lawfirm
    provided to me. Among the defective product referenced in this suit
    was a "letterboxed" (I assume 1:66--I got a correct edition) framing of
    the 1940 "Thief of Bagdad," which I will assume you know was never in
    that aspect ratio. There were also several that should have been at
    least 1:78 but got 1:66's instead. The woman I spoke with several
    times was quite knowledgeable and had a complete breakdown of which
    DVDs had been released with incorrect aspect ratios. The one question
    she couldn't answer is why there are a couple of non-MGM DVDs on the
    list (notably, "Chocolat").

    The Truth About Frances Farmer:
    http://hometown.aol.com/jmkauffman/sheddinglight.html
     
    JMK, Jul 18, 2005
    #9
  10. PenGuhWin

    PenGuhWin Guest

    In article <>, Jay G.
    <> wrote:

    > None had an incorrect aspect ratio (unless you're counting the 4x3
    > version). All the DVDs were correctly framed for widescreen, showing the
    > full and correct theatrical image.
    >
    > -Jay


    Again - wrong. "Yellow Submarine" was cropped from full-frame to create
    an artificial widescreen version.
     
    PenGuhWin, Jul 19, 2005
    #10
  11. PenGuhWin

    Jay G. Guest

    On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:14:13 -0400, PenGuhWin wrote:

    > In article <>, Jay G.
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> None had an incorrect aspect ratio (unless you're counting the 4x3
    >> version). All the DVDs were correctly framed for widescreen, showing the
    >> full and correct theatrical image.

    >
    > Again - wrong. "Yellow Submarine" was cropped from full-frame to create
    > an artificial widescreen version.


    You mean you think the film was originally shown in theaters in 4:3?
    While it was animated in 4:3, it wasn't originally *shown* that way.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063823/technical


    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Jul 20, 2005
    #11
  12. PenGuhWin

    Jay G. Guest

    On 18 Jul 2005 15:32:53 -0700, JMK wrote:

    > Sorry, you're incorrect, at least from the information the lawfirm
    > provided to me. Among the defective product referenced in this suit
    > was a "letterboxed" (I assume 1:66--I got a correct edition) framing of
    > the 1940 "Thief of Bagdad," which I will assume you know was never in
    > that aspect ratio.


    A letterboxed version of this film wasn't released on DVD. The law firm is
    just plain wrong about that.

    > There were also several that should have been at
    > least 1:78 but got 1:66's instead. The woman I spoke with several
    > times was quite knowledgeable and had a complete breakdown of which
    > DVDs had been released with incorrect aspect ratios.


    Well, if she gave you a complete breakdown, it should be easy for you to
    recite it.

    I mean, you even point out that this is a law firm that put "Chocolat" on
    their list of MGM films. It's not surprising that they made other
    mistakes, especially considering that the lawsuit itself, while technically
    correct for some titles, was based on a misconception of the film transfer
    process.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Jul 20, 2005
    #12
  13. PenGuhWin

    JMK Guest

    She didn't give me a complete breakdown, she *had* one which she
    referred to on two different occasions. And there was indeed a
    mismanufactured run of "Thief of Bagdad" that was not 4:3. There were
    also several other titles where at least part of the run was
    mismanufactured. She did tell me a couple of others, but I frankly
    can't recall them right now, but I want to say some of them might have
    been the Midnite Movies series (but, again, I really can't recall, so I
    may not be correct on that).

    Also, it wasn't the "lawfirm" that put "Chocolat" on the list. The
    lawfirm is simply the administrator of the settlement, they are neither
    party to nor an actual part of the suit itself. They were appointed by
    the Judge to handle the class complainants and all I can tell you is
    they have been most professional to me, including several follow-up
    calls to me when I have had questions.

    The list of eligible DVDs was submitted by MGM's attorneys. It
    actually makes me laugh that they were inept enough to include
    *several* non-MGM titles ("Chocolat" is the only one that springs to
    mind, but there were others). It's simply more evidence of what
    brainless dolts the powers that be at MGM actually are. I thought for
    a while that perhaps there was some licensing hierarchy that made these
    MGM titles, at least in part, but I remember specifically researching
    "Chocolat" and finding no such relationship and, when I asked, the
    woman with whom I spoke was stumped, too.

    The Truth About Frances Farmer:
    http://hometown.aol.com/jmkauffman/sheddinglight.html
     
    JMK, Jul 20, 2005
    #13
  14. PenGuhWin

    Jay G. Guest

    On 19 Jul 2005 21:35:11 -0700, JMK wrote:

    > She didn't give me a complete breakdown, she *had* one which she
    > referred to on two different occasions. And there was indeed a
    > mismanufactured run of "Thief of Bagdad" that was not 4:3.


    Cite it. Find me an article or review that mentions this
    "mismanufactured" run of the film, or even a first-hand account of
    someone who had one.

    > There were also several other titles where at least part of the
    > run was mismanufactured.


    The problem is, a DVD can't be mismanufactured in a wrong aspect ratio.
    The problem would extend back to the mastering, which means it would've
    affected all the DVDs manufactured, like the first run of the Back to the
    Future DVD set. not just a few that magically got a different aspect ratio
    from a non-existent master. Also, like the Back to the Future set, any
    incorrect aspect ratio would be highly publicized online.

    > She did tell me a couple of others, but I frankly
    > can't recall them right now, but I want to say some of them might have
    > been the Midnite Movies series (but, again, I really can't recall, so I
    > may not be correct on that).


    A quick search doesn't bring up any mention on the internet on any
    mis-framing of the Midnite Movies DVDs. It's interesting that you're so
    confident in making vague claims of any of the DVDs actually having framing
    issues, when all actual evidence points to the contrary.

    > Also, it wasn't the "lawfirm" that put "Chocolat" on the list.


    "Lawfirm" isn't a word.

    > The list of eligible DVDs was submitted by MGM's attorneys.


    Can you cite where you got this information? Nothing on the website
    mentions who compiled the list.
    http://mgmdvdsettlement.com/index.php3

    > It actually makes me laugh that they were inept enough to include
    > *several* non-MGM titles ("Chocolat" is the only one that springs to
    > mind, but there were others).


    Actually, it wasn't inept to include a film called "Chocolat" on the list,
    since MGM did in fact release a film with that title on DVD:

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005J75R/

    It seems the ineptness isn't where you think it lies.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Jul 20, 2005
    #14
  15. PenGuhWin

    JMK Guest

    Look, Jay, unlike you, I am not a sad and lonely "expert" with nothing
    better to do than post on Usenet. As I have hopefully made clear (to
    everyone but you), I am simply going by what the people at the LAW FIRM
    told me. Their 800 number is clearly posted on the Settlement website,
    so why don't you give them a holler and spend the rest of the week
    arguing with them. I'm sure they could use the laugh.

    Also, as I clearly stated above (and which you yourself quote), I
    wasn't then and am not now sure which other titles were incorrectly
    framed. I think maybe she mentioned the Midnite Movies releases, but I
    can't recall. This was months ago and I frankly have more important
    things to keep track of.

    And, bottom line, all I know is I will be receiving several hundred
    dollars back any day now, which I consider just and deserved from a
    studio that regularly botches its releases.

    Finally, "ineptness" isn't a word. It's "ineptitude", which I for one
    and beginning to think you personify. Peace, out.

    The Truth About Frances Farmer:
    http://hometown.aol.com/jmkauffman/sheddinglight.html
     
    JMK, Jul 20, 2005
    #15
  16. PenGuhWin

    Tarkus Guest

    Tarkus, Jul 20, 2005
    #16
  17. PenGuhWin

    Jay G. Guest

    On 20 Jul 2005 08:32:33 -0700, JMK wrote:
    >
    > And, bottom line, all I know is I will be receiving several hundred
    > dollars back any day now, which I consider just and deserved from a
    > studio that regularly botches its releases.


    Which titles did you return? You have yet to provide one solid example of
    a "botched" release from MGM, even though you seem to have had at least
    several dozen you thought were.

    > Finally, "ineptness" isn't a word. It's "ineptitude", which I for one
    > and beginning to think you personify. Peace, out.


    Tarkas already showed that "ineptness" is a word, but I also like
    this definition:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ineptitude
    in·ep·ti·tude
    n.
    1) The quality of being inept; *ineptness*.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Jul 20, 2005
    #17
  18. On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:49:38 -0700, Tarkus <> wrote:

    >On 7/20/2005 8:32:33 AM, JMK wrote:
    >
    >> Finally, "ineptness" isn't a word.

    >
    >http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ineptness


    Yes.and ineptitude is having the possesion of ineptness. Good call.

    ...Steve ..
     
    Steve(JazzHunter), Jul 20, 2005
    #18
  19. On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:22:45 -0500, "Jay G." <> wrote:

    >On 20 Jul 2005 08:32:33 -0700, JMK wrote:
    >>
    >> And, bottom line, all I know is I will be receiving several hundred
    >> dollars back any day now, which I consider just and deserved from a
    >> studio that regularly botches its releases.

    >
    >Which titles did you return? You have yet to provide one solid example of
    >a "botched" release from MGM, even though you seem to have had at least
    >several dozen you thought were.
    >


    Yah, I have a bunch of the MGM titles on the list, and there is not a
    thing wrong with them other than that a couple are incorrectly
    identified as to the aspect ratio. The DVD is right, the labelling is
    wrong. On the other hand many of these are out of print and worth
    MUCH more than the measly sum being offered for return. I'l keep them
    thank you.

    .. Steve ..

    >> Finally, "ineptness" isn't a word. It's "ineptitude", which I for one
    >> and beginning to think you personify. Peace, out.

    >
    >Tarkas already showed that "ineptness" is a word, but I also like
    >this definition:
    >
    >http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ineptitude
    > in·ep·ti·tude
    > n.
    > 1) The quality of being inept; *ineptness*.
    >
    >-Jay
     
    Steve(JazzHunter), Jul 20, 2005
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dave Girvitz
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    446
    Humanity
    Dec 9, 2003
  2. HP Class-action settlement Question

    , Oct 6, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    462
  3. Tarkus
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    518
  4. Gerry
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    1,051
    Steve(JazzHunter)
    Mar 19, 2005
  5. bigdaddyhorse
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    679
Loading...

Share This Page