MGM lawsuit

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by scott, Jan 21, 2005.

  1. scott

    scott Guest

    scott, Jan 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. scott

    TB Guest

    "scott" wrote:
    >
    > Is this something new?


    Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7 bucks a
    pop.

    T.B.
    TB, Jan 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. scott

    Mike Kohary Guest

    TB wrote:
    > "scott" wrote:
    >>
    >> Is this something new?

    >
    > Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7
    > bucks a pop.


    It says the plaintiffs complained that "certain representations on the label
    and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and misleading because
    MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio have the
    same image width as MGM's standard screen format DVDs." MGM denies this,
    but apparently decided on a settlement to avoid protracted court costs.

    That's all the detail there is on the complaint. What does that mean
    exactly?

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary, Jan 21, 2005
    #3
  4. scott

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Mike Kohary wrote:
    > TB wrote:
    >> "scott" wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Is this something new?

    >>
    >> Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7
    >> bucks a pop.

    >
    > It says the plaintiffs complained that "certain representations on
    > the label and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and
    > misleading because MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85
    > to 1 aspect ratio have the same image width as MGM's standard screen
    > format DVDs." MGM denies this, but apparently decided on a
    > settlement to avoid protracted court costs.
    > That's all the detail there is on the complaint. What does that mean
    > exactly?


    Just as I thought. Here's some more information, and IMO it's bad news.
    From the web site of the law firm that filed the class action:

    "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."

    To illustrate the full idiocy being committed here, this is from CBS News:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/17/entertainment/main533322.shtml

    Basically, he sued over letterboxing. What a putz. Is this guy's psuedonym
    Bernie Farber by any chance?

    Want to do the right thing? Go to http://www.mgmdvdsettlement.com/ and
    request to exclude yourself from the class action. This is just the sort of
    thing that makes me want to see the entire system reformed.

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary, Jan 21, 2005
    #4
  5. scott

    Jay G. Guest

    On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:31:41 -0800, Mike Kohary wrote:
    >> "scott" wrote:
    >>>


    >
    > It says the plaintiffs complained that "certain representations on the label
    > and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and misleading because
    > MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio have the
    > same image width as MGM's standard screen format DVDs." MGM denies this,
    > but apparently decided on a settlement to avoid protracted court costs.
    >
    > That's all the detail there is on the complaint. What does that mean
    > exactly?


    For films shot soft-matted, the theatrical 1.85:1 image is shot within a
    1.37:1 film frame. The frame is then matted for theatrical showing,
    typically within the projector. For reformatting to 4:3 TV, the studio
    will often "open-matte" the image, or open the mattes up and show the full,
    original film frame. In these cases, the 4:3 version shows the full width
    of the 1.85:1 image, as well as additional image on the top and bottom.
    However, just because it shows more info doesn't mean it's desirable. Look
    to the following link for more info:

    http://www.digieffects.com/frames/transferfilmtovideo/filmtovideo.html#VideoSoftMatte

    In the case with MGM, MGM consistently stated that the widescreen version
    on the DVD showed more information than the 4:3 version, even in the case
    of soft-matted 1.85:1 films where this wasn't actually true. They even
    sometimes had visual examples that misrepresented what the 4:3 frame
    actually showed.

    So the plaintiff is technically correct in this case, although he is wrong
    aesthetically.

    -Jay
    Jay G., Jan 21, 2005
    #5
  6. TB wrote:

    >>Is this something new?

    >
    > Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7 bucks a
    > pop.


    No, it means you can sell them FOR 7 bucks a pop--
    Or just get one free, seeing as they're pretty much the same unload
    titles you usually *do* get with "Buy 3, Get One Free" offers.

    Also, as the settlement describes, they're not claiming guilt and are
    basically offering it to *shut up* the widescreen-pest's
    publicity/harrassment suit.

    Derek Janssen (which's pretty much the one embarrassing part about
    filling out the form and joining it)
    Derek Janssen, Jan 21, 2005
    #6
  7. scott

    GMAN Guest

    In article <KtZHd.357$>, Derek Janssen <> wrote:
    >TB wrote:
    >
    >>>Is this something new?

    >>
    >> Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7 bucks a
    >> pop.

    >
    >No, it means you can sell them FOR 7 bucks a pop--
    >Or just get one free, seeing as they're pretty much the same unload
    >titles you usually *do* get with "Buy 3, Get One Free" offers.
    >
    >Also, as the settlement describes, they're not claiming guilt and are
    >basically offering it to *shut up* the widescreen-pest's
    >publicity/harrassment suit.
    >
    >Derek Janssen (which's pretty much the one embarrassing part about
    >filling out the form and joining it)
    >

    Half the movies on that list i'd be ashamed to have in my collection.
    GMAN, Jan 21, 2005
    #7
  8. scott

    Joe S Guest

    GMAN wrote:
    > In article <KtZHd.357$>, Derek Janssen <> wrote:
    >
    >>TB wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>Is this something new?
    >>>
    >>>Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7 bucks a
    >>>pop.

    >>
    >>No, it means you can sell them FOR 7 bucks a pop--
    >>Or just get one free, seeing as they're pretty much the same unload
    >>titles you usually *do* get with "Buy 3, Get One Free" offers.
    >>
    >>Also, as the settlement describes, they're not claiming guilt and are
    >>basically offering it to *shut up* the widescreen-pest's
    >>publicity/harrassment suit.
    >>
    >>Derek Janssen (which's pretty much the one embarrassing part about
    >>filling out the form and joining it)
    >>

    >
    > Half the movies on that list i'd be ashamed to have in my collection.



    Thanks for sharing.

    Really.



    Joe
    Joe S, Jan 21, 2005
    #8
  9. scott

    Guest Guest


    >>>> Is this something new?
    >>>
    >>> Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7
    >>> bucks a pop.

    >>
    >> It says the plaintiffs complained that "certain representations on
    >> the label and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and
    >> misleading because MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85
    >> to 1 aspect ratio have the same image width as MGM's standard screen
    >> format DVDs." MGM denies this, but apparently decided on a
    >> settlement to avoid protracted court costs.
    >> That's all the detail there is on the complaint. What does that mean
    >> exactly?


    I've run into this more than once. The movie is shot in academy ratio and
    framed for showing in theaters at 1.85:1. I noticed it because the tops of
    heads were cut off in the "Widescreen" presentation, but not in the
    "Fullscreen". Further, the width of the image was exactly the same in both
    versions. IOW one doesn't see any more of the movie in the letterboxed
    version. I've been under the delusion that the tradeoff for the smaller
    letterboxed image was that it could deliver parts of the picture that would
    otherwise be missing. Apparently not.

    Norm Strong
    Guest, Jan 21, 2005
    #9
  10. scott

    Richard C. Guest

    X-No-archive: yes

    "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    news:cspjkf$4vg$...
    > Mike Kohary wrote:
    >> TB wrote:
    >>> "scott" wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Is this something new?
    >>>
    >>> Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7
    >>> bucks a pop.

    >>
    >> It says the plaintiffs complained that "certain representations on
    >> the label and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and
    >> misleading because MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85
    >> to 1 aspect ratio have the same image width as MGM's standard screen
    >> format DVDs." MGM denies this, but apparently decided on a
    >> settlement to avoid protracted court costs.
    >> That's all the detail there is on the complaint. What does that mean
    >> exactly?

    >
    > Just as I thought. Here's some more information, and IMO it's bad news.
    > From the web site of the law firm that filed the class action:
    >
    > "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."
    >
    > To illustrate the full idiocy being committed here, this is from CBS News:
    >
    > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/17/entertainment/main533322.shtml
    >
    > Basically, he sued over letterboxing. What a putz. Is this guy's
    > psuedonym Bernie Farber by any chance?
    >
    > Want to do the right thing? Go to http://www.mgmdvdsettlement.com/ and
    > request to exclude yourself from the class action. This is just the sort
    > of thing that makes me want to see the entire system reformed.
    >

    =======================================
    I have done just that.
    I will be sending in my exclusion.

    NOW.............if they really wanted to do a worthwhile suit,
    MGM is guilty of releasing many new titles in NON-anamorphic widescreen.
    THAT is something they need to be called on.
    =============================================
    Richard C., Jan 21, 2005
    #10
  11. scott

    Richard C. Guest

    X-No-archive: yes

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >>>>> Is this something new?
    >>>>
    >>>> Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7
    >>>> bucks a pop.
    >>>
    >>> It says the plaintiffs complained that "certain representations on
    >>> the label and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and
    >>> misleading because MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85
    >>> to 1 aspect ratio have the same image width as MGM's standard screen
    >>> format DVDs." MGM denies this, but apparently decided on a
    >>> settlement to avoid protracted court costs.
    >>> That's all the detail there is on the complaint. What does that mean
    >>> exactly?

    >
    > I've run into this more than once. The movie is shot in academy ratio and
    > framed for showing in theaters at 1.85:1. I noticed it because the tops
    > of heads were cut off in the "Widescreen" presentation, but not in the
    > "Fullscreen". Further, the width of the image was exactly the same in
    > both versions. IOW one doesn't see any more of the movie in the
    > letterboxed version. I've been under the delusion that the tradeoff for
    > the smaller letterboxed image was that it could deliver parts of the
    > picture that would otherwise be missing. Apparently not.
    >
    > Norm Strong
    >

    =========================================
    In the "letterboxed" version, however, you actually see the movie as
    presented
    in the theater.
    ==========================================
    Richard C., Jan 21, 2005
    #11
  12. scott

    Joe S Guest

    wrote:
    >>>>>Is this something new?
    >>>>
    >>>>Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7
    >>>>bucks a pop.
    >>>
    >>>It says the plaintiffs complained that "certain representations on
    >>>the label and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and
    >>>misleading because MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85
    >>>to 1 aspect ratio have the same image width as MGM's standard screen
    >>>format DVDs." MGM denies this, but apparently decided on a
    >>>settlement to avoid protracted court costs.
    >>>That's all the detail there is on the complaint. What does that mean
    >>>exactly?

    >
    >
    > I've run into this more than once. The movie is shot in academy ratio and
    > framed for showing in theaters at 1.85:1. I noticed it because the tops of
    > heads were cut off in the "Widescreen" presentation, but not in the
    > "Fullscreen". Further, the width of the image was exactly the same in both
    > versions. IOW one doesn't see any more of the movie in the letterboxed
    > version. I've been under the delusion that the tradeoff for the smaller
    > letterboxed image was that it could deliver parts of the picture that would
    > otherwise be missing. Apparently not.
    >
    > Norm Strong
    >
    >



    Are you still trolling this blah-blah so many years later?

    Do you *really* not understand?


    Joe
    Joe S, Jan 21, 2005
    #12
  13. scott

    MarMac1 Guest


    >
    > Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7 bucks a
    > pop.
    >
    > T.B.


    Hi T.B.

    You got the language wrong. It works this way, IF you have one of the disks
    that the suit is about, you MAY exchange it for another NEWER DVD from MGM
    OR you may get $7.10 FROM MGM for each disk you want to send them.

    Actually, if there is a big response to this, MGM will be the ones who will
    sending checks out for $7.10.

    What it is another way for LAWYERS to make a billion dollars over an issue
    that no one, except them, gives a damn about!!

    MarMac

    >
    >
    MarMac1, Jan 21, 2005
    #13
  14. scott

    Invid Fan Guest

    In article <41f11a1f$0$27419$>, Richard
    C. <> wrote:

    > X-No-archive: yes
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > >>>>> Is this something new?
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7
    > >>>> bucks a pop.
    > >>>
    > >>> It says the plaintiffs complained that "certain representations on
    > >>> the label and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and
    > >>> misleading because MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85
    > >>> to 1 aspect ratio have the same image width as MGM's standard screen
    > >>> format DVDs." MGM denies this, but apparently decided on a
    > >>> settlement to avoid protracted court costs.
    > >>> That's all the detail there is on the complaint. What does that mean
    > >>> exactly?

    > >
    > > I've run into this more than once. The movie is shot in academy ratio and
    > > framed for showing in theaters at 1.85:1. I noticed it because the tops
    > > of heads were cut off in the "Widescreen" presentation, but not in the
    > > "Fullscreen". Further, the width of the image was exactly the same in
    > > both versions. IOW one doesn't see any more of the movie in the
    > > letterboxed version. I've been under the delusion that the tradeoff for
    > > the smaller letterboxed image was that it could deliver parts of the
    > > picture that would otherwise be missing. Apparently not.
    > >
    > > Norm Strong
    > >

    > =========================================
    > In the "letterboxed" version, however, you actually see the movie as
    > presented
    > in the theater.


    Yes, but if MGM was promoting the letterboxed version as having more of
    the image, that's not true. They're getting their hand slapped for
    keeping the same lable on all dvds regardless of if the 4:3 version is
    open mat or pan/scan. No different then old tv shows being labled as
    "modifed to fit your screen" just because that's what everying 4:3 gets
    labled on the assumption that it was originaly a leterboxed movie.

    --
    Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
    'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
    -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
    Invid Fan, Jan 21, 2005
    #14
  15. scott

    Richard C. Guest

    X-No-archive: yes

    "Invid Fan" <> wrote in message
    news:210120051238387406%...
    > In article <41f11a1f$0$27419$>, Richard
    > C. <> wrote:
    >
    >> X-No-archive: yes
    >>
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> >
    >> >>>>> Is this something new?
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7
    >> >>>> bucks a pop.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> It says the plaintiffs complained that "certain representations on
    >> >>> the label and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and
    >> >>> misleading because MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85
    >> >>> to 1 aspect ratio have the same image width as MGM's standard screen
    >> >>> format DVDs." MGM denies this, but apparently decided on a
    >> >>> settlement to avoid protracted court costs.
    >> >>> That's all the detail there is on the complaint. What does that mean
    >> >>> exactly?
    >> >
    >> > I've run into this more than once. The movie is shot in academy ratio
    >> > and
    >> > framed for showing in theaters at 1.85:1. I noticed it because the
    >> > tops
    >> > of heads were cut off in the "Widescreen" presentation, but not in the
    >> > "Fullscreen". Further, the width of the image was exactly the same in
    >> > both versions. IOW one doesn't see any more of the movie in the
    >> > letterboxed version. I've been under the delusion that the tradeoff
    >> > for
    >> > the smaller letterboxed image was that it could deliver parts of the
    >> > picture that would otherwise be missing. Apparently not.
    >> >
    >> > Norm Strong
    >> >

    >> =========================================
    >> In the "letterboxed" version, however, you actually see the movie as
    >> presented
    >> in the theater.

    >
    > Yes, but if MGM was promoting the letterboxed version as having more of
    > the image, that's not true. They're getting their hand slapped for
    > keeping the same lable on all dvds regardless of if the 4:3 version is
    > open mat or pan/scan. No different then old tv shows being labled as
    > "modifed to fit your screen" just because that's what everying 4:3 gets
    > labled on the assumption that it was originaly a leterboxed movie.
    >

    ==========================================
    I agree with most of that.
    But this particular class action is not going to change anything for the
    better.
    It may just cause MGM to release everything in "full screen" - which is
    another big problem.
    Why not a class action against "full screen" since it is not true on a 16:9
    set.
    Why not a class action against the word "standard" since it is NOT the way
    the movie was released.

    The whole way WS is being handled is a load of crap!
    Richard C., Jan 21, 2005
    #15
  16. scott

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Invid Fan wrote:
    > In article <41f11a1f$0$27419$>, Richard
    > C. <> wrote:
    >
    >> X-No-archive: yes
    >>
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>>>>>> Is this something new?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over
    >>>>>> 7 bucks a pop.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It says the plaintiffs complained that "certain representations on
    >>>>> the label and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false
    >>>>> and misleading because MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in
    >>>>> the 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio have the same image width as MGM's
    >>>>> standard screen format DVDs." MGM denies this, but apparently
    >>>>> decided on a settlement to avoid protracted court costs.
    >>>>> That's all the detail there is on the complaint. What does that
    >>>>> mean exactly?
    >>>
    >>> I've run into this more than once. The movie is shot in academy
    >>> ratio and framed for showing in theaters at 1.85:1. I noticed it
    >>> because the tops of heads were cut off in the "Widescreen"
    >>> presentation, but not in the "Fullscreen". Further, the width of
    >>> the image was exactly the same in both versions. IOW one doesn't
    >>> see any more of the movie in the letterboxed version. I've been
    >>> under the delusion that the tradeoff for the smaller letterboxed
    >>> image was that it could deliver parts of the picture that would
    >>> otherwise be missing. Apparently not.
    >>>
    >>> Norm Strong
    >>>

    >> =========================================
    >> In the "letterboxed" version, however, you actually see the movie as
    >> presented
    >> in the theater.

    >
    > Yes, but if MGM was promoting the letterboxed version as having more
    > of the image, that's not true. They're getting their hand slapped for
    > keeping the same lable on all dvds regardless of if the 4:3 version is
    > open mat or pan/scan. No different then old tv shows being labled as
    > "modifed to fit your screen" just because that's what everying 4:3
    > gets labled on the assumption that it was originaly a leterboxed
    > movie.


    Yes, I understand this point now, and literally speaking, the plaintiff is
    correct. However, it is totally frivolous to file a lawsuit over it.

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary, Jan 22, 2005
    #16
  17. scott

    P Pron Guest

    wrote:
    >>>>> Is this something new?
    >>>>
    >>>> Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7
    >>>> bucks a pop.
    >>>
    >>> It says the plaintiffs complained that "certain representations on
    >>> the label and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and
    >>> misleading because MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85
    >>> to 1 aspect ratio have the same image width as MGM's standard screen
    >>> format DVDs." MGM denies this, but apparently decided on a
    >>> settlement to avoid protracted court costs.
    >>> That's all the detail there is on the complaint. What does that
    >>> mean exactly?

    >
    > I've run into this more than once. The movie is shot in academy
    > ratio and framed for showing in theaters at 1.85:1. I noticed it
    > because the tops of heads were cut off in the "Widescreen"
    > presentation, but not in the "Fullscreen". Further, the width of the
    > image was exactly the same in both versions. IOW one doesn't see
    > any more of the movie in the letterboxed version. I've been under
    > the delusion that the tradeoff for the smaller letterboxed image was
    > that it could deliver parts of the picture that would otherwise be
    > missing. Apparently not.
    > Norm Strong


    It _is_ true that you see more top and bottom when you see the movie without
    the "widescreen" mask.

    Hence, in the "full frame" version of Peggy Sue Got Married, you see the
    microphone boom several times. You can also see the stuntmen's catapults in
    Commando, and the sound-man lying on a red LiLo in the riverbed in Dirty
    Dancing. All things that you weren't intended to see, and which distract
    from the content of the movie.

    But (apart from the distractions) the trade-off for filling the screen top
    to bottom is that you _must_ lose a small amount of the picture at the sides
    if you're mastering from a 35mm film. If there are any DVDs where the
    fool-screen and widescreen versions have the same boundaries from side to
    side, they must be the result a mastering mistake, with the widescreen
    master being inadvertantly prepared from an already-cropped master.

    I've named three examples where the fool-screen master has f*ed up the
    movie. Can you name any where the side-to-side boundaries are the same in
    both versions? Or have you just "run into this more than once"??

    paul
    P Pron, Jan 22, 2005
    #17
  18. scott

    Donald Link Guest


    >
    >> Yes, but if MGM was promoting the letterboxed version as having more
    >> of the image, that's not true. They're getting their hand slapped for
    >> keeping the same lable on all dvds regardless of if the 4:3 version is
    >> open mat or pan/scan. No different then old tv shows being labled as
    >> "modifed to fit your screen" just because that's what everying 4:3
    >> gets labled on the assumption that it was originaly a leterboxed
    >> movie.

    >
    >Yes, I understand this point now, and literally speaking, the plaintiff is
    >correct. However, it is totally frivolous to file a lawsuit over it.


    Well if the plaintiff is correct then he should stick it up the ass of
    MGM even it is frivolous. Besides it no worse than the prick in
    Hollywood filing shitty lawsuits. Any time someone gets a chanch they
    should tie them up in lawsuits and keep them too busy.
    Donald Link, Jan 22, 2005
    #18
  19. scott

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Donald Link wrote:
    >>> Yes, but if MGM was promoting the letterboxed version as having more
    >>> of the image, that's not true. They're getting their hand slapped
    >>> for keeping the same lable on all dvds regardless of if the 4:3
    >>> version is open mat or pan/scan. No different then old tv shows
    >>> being labled as "modifed to fit your screen" just because that's
    >>> what everying 4:3 gets labled on the assumption that it was
    >>> originaly a leterboxed movie.

    >>
    >> Yes, I understand this point now, and literally speaking, the
    >> plaintiff is correct. However, it is totally frivolous to file a
    >> lawsuit over it.

    >
    > Well if the plaintiff is correct then he should stick it up the ass of
    > MGM even it is frivolous.


    Unfortunately, it's also potentially harmful to the rest of us. What if a
    lawsuit like this convinced a studio not to risk it on widescreen releases
    any more?

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary, Jan 22, 2005
    #19
  20. scott

    Guest Guest

    "Richard C." <> wrote in message
    news:41f11a1f$0$27419$...
    > X-No-archive: yes
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >>>>>> Is this something new?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7
    >>>>> bucks a pop.
    >>>>
    >>>> It says the plaintiffs complained that "certain representations on
    >>>> the label and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and
    >>>> misleading because MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85
    >>>> to 1 aspect ratio have the same image width as MGM's standard screen
    >>>> format DVDs." MGM denies this, but apparently decided on a
    >>>> settlement to avoid protracted court costs.
    >>>> That's all the detail there is on the complaint. What does that mean
    >>>> exactly?

    >>
    >> I've run into this more than once. The movie is shot in academy ratio
    >> and framed for showing in theaters at 1.85:1. I noticed it because the
    >> tops of heads were cut off in the "Widescreen" presentation, but not in
    >> the "Fullscreen". Further, the width of the image was exactly the same
    >> in both versions. IOW one doesn't see any more of the movie in the
    >> letterboxed version. I've been under the delusion that the tradeoff for
    >> the smaller letterboxed image was that it could deliver parts of the
    >> picture that would otherwise be missing. Apparently not.
    >>
    >> Norm Strong
    >>

    > =========================================
    > In the "letterboxed" version, however, you actually see the movie as
    > presented
    > in the theater.
    > ==========================================


    Yes. More's the pity.
    Guest, Jan 22, 2005
    #20
    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. TechNews
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    651
    Duane Arnold
    Jun 16, 2004
  2. Tech
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    476
  3. olympussuit

    Olympus class action lawsuit

    olympussuit, Aug 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    647
    Chuck Gadd
    Aug 30, 2003
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,519
  5. Reader

    MGM Class Action lawsuit in the USA

    Reader, Jan 28, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    880
    Jimbo
    Feb 18, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page