MGM DVD Hits Visual Controversy - Incorrect Aspect Ratio

[GabeB]

A major legal controversy is swirling around MGM DVD copies with over 300 titles being affected by an aspect ratio problem. According to CHUD, claims have gone up that state MGM Home Video has been misleading about the films they're marketing as widescreen, rather cutting the top and bottom off of pan and scan transfers and billing it as widescreen, as the aspect ratio is still correct.

Amongst the titles that may have been affected are "1984", "24 Hour Party People", "The Amityville Horror", "Annie Hall", "Barbershop", "The Birdcage", "City Slickers", "The Dark Half", "Dead Man Walking", "Desperately Seeking Susan", "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels", "Dr. No", "Four Weddings & A Funeral", "From Russia With Love", "Goldfinger", "Gorky Park", "Hannibal", "The Hound of the Baskervilles", "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", "The Island of Dr. Moreau", "Jeepers Creepers", "Mannequin", "Man in the Moon", "The Man with the Golden Gun", "Midnight Cowboy", "Mississippi Burning", "Mystic Pizza", "Phantasm", "Platoon", "Raging Bull", "Rain Man", "Scanners", "Shallow Grave", "Some Like it Hot", "Spaceballs", "The Terminator", "Wargames" and "Y Tu Mama Tambien".


http://www.mgmdvdsettlement.com/

List to the movies:
http://mgmdvdsettlement.com/eligible.php3

Has anyone noticed that their movies are just cropped?

[Nilfennasion]

Just great. Spetters is among the affected list. Although I purchased it sometime in 2004, so maybe I am not affected. How do I tell, really?

[Cornucopia]

I was thinking that they would have been "cropped" from the 4:3 soft matte transfer-which is common and a valid way to do it--but that sounds more like they actually cropped the P&S copy (which is itself a crop of the original)! OMG! I hope they have to shell out the big bucks!

Damn, I was planning on getting a Bond boxed set--should I wait?

Scott

[dphirschler]

I wonder... does this affect the anamorphic transfers? I've been quite pleased with my copy of "The Terminator". But I understand that it has been released more than once.


Darryl

[Gurm]

I find it hard to believe that nobody noticed this.

The one movie on that list that I was aware of this happening ... EVERYONE was aware of it happening.

I refer, of course, to the original release of "The Princess Bride", and it was so egregious that it was immediately noticed by everyone with half a discriminating eye.

I fail to believe that all these movies are affected!

[BJ_M]

The "Special" 40th Anniversary DVD of Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is presented with an aspect ratio of 1.66:1. This was created by cutting off the top and bottom of the original 1.33:1 (apx.) print, and does not add any new footage to the image (rather, it deletes a good chunk of it).


who ever came up with great idea .....................

[adam]

BJ_M, isn't that how it was shown in the theatre though? Didn't the top and bottom portions just extend above and below the visible screen?

So what this suit is saying is that they P&S those DVDs that only have a slightly wider DAR, down to 1.33:1 (I assume) and then release that as the FS and then just add letterboxing for the WS. Shitty if true.

The only one of those I own is Spaceballs and its a good one to compare because it has both WS and FS on it. Flipping between the two, the WS is obviously just the letterboxed version of the FS, but it looks ok, not like it was P&S'ed. There are plenty of wide shots, none of that jumping between blown up faces during conversations. It just doesn't play like a P&S.

[jbenj01]

didn't they do something similar with The Godfather, only the opposite, and pawned it off as the widescreen edition?

[Cornucopia]

The "Special" 40th Anniversary DVD of Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is presented with an aspect ratio of 1.66:1. This was created by cutting off the top and bottom of the original 1.33:1 (apx.) print, and does not add any new footage to the image (rather, it deletes a good chunk of it).


who ever came up with great idea .....................

Whoa! Damn, I was going to get that--one of my All-Time Faves...
Are there any other extant versions that are both good quality, good AR, and buyable?

Scott

[sammie]

I'll have to get out my Dr. Strangelove too and see.

Overall, I tend to agree with Grum, this should/would have been painfully obvious. I mean think about it, any talking head shot would have a good chunk of the top or bottom of the head lopped off. It would have to be a cut down from the original print, which would be reasonably inline with the original theatrical practice and display.

[Nilfennasion]

Dr. Strangelove, as I understand it, was meant to be shown in two different aspect ratios, these being 1.33:1 and 1.66:1 (although the 1.66:1 shots are so infrequent they can be easily missed).

I have a copy of Spetters that I ordered in 2004. From what I can see of the cinematography, it looks like this disc is fine. However, MGM have been no help here, not even bothering to post serial or IFPI numbers for the discs that are affected.

[Gurm]

That's because that site isn't hosted by MGM, it's hosted by (usually) the attorneys that are filing the class action.

The "cutdown" of Dr. Strangelove's 40th anniversary was, in fact, from the original 1.33:1 print, which is consistent with what they do in theaters.

Original 4:3 workprints have all kinds of crap in the top and bottom - boom mikes, cables, etc.

They're ALL cut down to make the final widescreen theatrical prints.

I think this may very well be a lawsuit brought on by one or two egregious cutdowns (like the Princess Bride) and made larger by a misunderstanding.

[Nilfennasion]

A few things:

1) The attorneys filing the class action should at least be able to source this information and repeat it so they don't get a lot of false claims.

2) Not every original 4:3 print has equipment visible in the open frame. Every director who has used this method has made at least one film where they kept mikes and dolly tracks out of frame specifically so they could change the ratio if they so desired (or the studio ordered it for whatever reason).

3) If the suggestion that prints that were 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 were Panned And Scanned, then cut top and bottom again to falsely restore their original aspect ratio is in any way accurate, then this is not a misunderstanding at all. In fact, it's a damned good thing, because it might set a legal precedent to scare the moronic companies that have taken material that was specifically filmed to be 1.33:1 and cut it down to 1.78:1 in a display of reverse ignorance. Which is a damned good thing.

[GabeB]

I'd love to see some examples with screen captures if anyone has them....

[dphirschler]

http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matted.shtml

Some examples of "open matte" full screen versions. Are these people pissed because they got a widescreen version instead of a full frame version? Sounds like they wanted the full frame even though it was not intended to be seen.


Darryl

[GabeB]

I thought they matted the Pan and Scan versions to really lose a lot of the original size. All these different methods to crop are going to my head

[BJ_M]

BJ_M, isn't that how it was shown in the theatre though? Didn't the top and bottom portions just extend above and below the visible screen?

it is meant to be shown at 1.33 (masked to 1.37) , many 35mm films were made in this aspect ratio http://imdb.com/SearchRatios?1.33 since it is 35mm's native ratio - these WERE shown for th emost part correctly when they came out and in better theaters still this way -- but many theaters dont have the movable masking for it anymore - so they just cut it off ...

not to many NON TV series are shot this way anymore ..


since 35mm is 1.37 and is masked off for widescreen (1.66 - 1.85) - you can have either the whole thing (which is sometimes rare as sets and booms are in this area) or a pan and scan from the wide screen to 4:3 ... or a movie is shot with anamorpic lens (2.35:1)

see here for a nice table of aspect ratios

http://www.screensound.gov.au/glossary.nsf/Pages/Aspect+Ratio?OpenDocument

[BJ_M]

The "Special" 40th Anniversary DVD of Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is presented with an aspect ratio of 1.66:1. This was created by cutting off the top and bottom of the original 1.33:1 (apx.) print, and does not add any new footage to the image (rather, it deletes a good chunk of it).


who ever came up with great idea .....................

Whoa! Damn, I was going to get that--one of my All-Time Faves...
Are there any other extant versions that are both good quality, good AR, and buyable?

Scott

yes the prev. versions to this are fine ... and look the same (it wasnt remastered for quality afaik)

[BJ_M]

Dr. Strangelove, as I understand it, was meant to be shown in two different aspect ratios, these being 1.33:1 and 1.66:1 (although the 1.66:1 shots are so infrequent they can be easily missed).

I have a copy of Spetters that I ordered in 2004. From what I can see of the cinematography, it looks like this disc is fine. However, MGM have been no help here, not even bothering to post serial or IFPI numbers for the discs that are affected.

meant to be shown in 1.37 (masked 1.33) , parts are in two other ratio as well - the way he shot it ... but playback is meant for 1.37 all the way through

[BJ_M]

That's because that site isn't hosted by MGM, it's hosted by (usually) the attorneys that are filing the class action.

The "cutdown" of Dr. Strangelove's 40th anniversary was, in fact, from the original 1.33:1 print, which is consistent with what they do in theaters.

Original 4:3 workprints have all kinds of crap in the top and bottom - boom mikes, cables, etc.

They're ALL cut down to make the final widescreen theatrical prints.

I think this may very well be a lawsuit brought on by one or two egregious cutdowns (like the Princess Bride) and made larger by a misunderstanding.

this is not true -- many are shot in anamorphic, and some are shot in 1.33 or shot in 70mm ...

theaters today -- in many many cases -- are crap , compared to the quality taken back in the 40-70's , then almost all theater chains went tits up in the 80's and early 90's and worked under chapt 11 for a long time ..

the cineplex was born -- the crap of crap .. remember those little screen cineplex's for awhile ? they had ussually 12-16 foot wide screens and maybe 40 - 90 seats ..

[BJ_M]

A few things:

1) The attorneys filing the class action should at least be able to source this information and repeat it so they don't get a lot of false claims.

2) Not every original 4:3 print has equipment visible in the open frame. Every director who has used this method has made at least one film where they kept mikes and dolly tracks out of frame specifically so they could change the ratio if they so desired (or the studio ordered it for whatever reason).

3) If the suggestion that prints that were 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 were Panned And Scanned, then cut top and bottom again to falsely restore their original aspect ratio is in any way accurate, then this is not a misunderstanding at all. In fact, it's a damned good thing, because it might set a legal precedent to scare the moronic companies that have taken material that was specifically filmed to be 1.33:1 and cut it down to 1.78:1 in a display of reverse ignorance. Which is a damned good thing.

you are right -- many films are shot with no crap in the top and bottom -- if they know its going straight to video specially .. and many tv series , which are shot on 35mm

[Darth Paris]

My copy of Red Dawn is a flipper disk. One side is widescreen, the other is fullscreen. I can tell you that the widescreen version is a cropped version of the fullscreen.

[Gurm]

The problem with that example is NOT that the widescreen isn't a cut-down. It clearly is.

The question is - how was it presented in the theater? Was the fullscreen Pan&Scan? If it's a cut-down P&S, that sucks. But if it's just a cutdown, maybe it was SUPPOSED to be a cutdown. I think in a lot of cases it probably was.

And as was previously stated - it's EASY to tell. Find a "talking heads" scene and see if the tops of the heads are cut off!

[ishtar1138]

Phantasm is correctly letterboxed. it was fimed open-matte and cropped top and bottom for the theaters. when i bought the laser disc box set about 10 years ago i found out about this technique. i hope they re-release this in Anamorphic wide screen this time.

[Gurm]

Was Phantasm on the list?

I hope that this gets cleared up and the settlement doesn't just go through "because". On the one hand I have seen some egregious issues, but on the other hand - c'mon, fair is fair.

[Nilfennasion]

you are right -- many films are shot with no crap in the top and bottom -- if they know its going straight to video specially .. and many tv series , which are shot on 35mm

Indeed, I have reviewed many, many such films, and seen quite a few more. Most of the Police Academy series was shot this way, not because it was originally going straight to video, but because the studio knew that video sales would be crucial. RoboCop and Hollow Man were, on the other hand, just shot by a very gifted director and cinematographer who like to keep their options open. Then there's TV minseries like V, where the director wanted to shoot 1.85:1, but the studio insisted that it be shown in the TV aspect ratio since that was where it was going anyway. Then there's directors like James Cameron, who deliberately shoot so the 1.33:1 version of their films looks just as dynamic as the 2.35:1 version.

I think this whole topic is getting a little confused, because we haven't cleared up whether the issue is what I think it is, essentially that widescreen prints have been panned and scanned, and then the P/S versions have been cropped again to artificially create a widescreen image. If I understand the language of the lawsuit right, then this is what has happened, but it is hard to tell.

The majority of the DVD-buying public these days know that the 1.85:1 aspect ratio is derived from a 1.33:1 negative and the director wants it that way and so on. Not because they're educated, necessarily, but because the educated portion beat this into the heads of the uneducated. A lawyer pursuing a case like this would certainly know to research the issue, because not doing so could cost him his job.

[BJ_M]

Nilfennasion - i read the lawsuit also and couldnt make out exactly what the complaint was either (i am not saying there is or isnt a valid reason) , just that the facts seem few and scarce ......

is it worthy of a class action lawsuit ?

btw - as i read it , this is NOT a settled case , just a proposal ..

[doppletwo]

I don't think it is an MGM release, but Poisen Ivy 3 starring Jamie Pressley has that type of fake wide screen.

But I think that was made for TV and the original footage is probably 4:3

Uh nevermind.

[BJ_M]

Poisen Ivy 3 was straight to video

[adam]

Yes this is just a proposed settlement on the part of the plaintiffs, so unless MGM agrees it doesn't mean anything. But this suit was filed like 3 years ago. I can't imagine it would have lasted this long unless there was some merit to the allegations. If the plaintiffs just assumed it was panned and scanned merely because the WS is only the letterboxed version of the FS, then surely MGM would have gotten a summary judgment already.