MGM DVD Hits Visual Controversy - Incorrect Aspect Ratio

[FulciLives]

... look at stanley kubrick's films, he never wanted them cropped for the home releases. the Shining looks scarier in 1.85 ratio.

Actually there was a time when Kubrick preferred full screen home video to widescreen home video. I forget now why but I think it had to do with the "smallness" of a widescreen image on a TV and it's lack of detail.

It is funny you brought up THE SHINNING because I distinctly remember reading that this was one film Kubrick (at least at one time) definately wanted to be shown full screen on home video.

However Kubrick did finally give the thumbs up to all his films being re-done in widescreen for DVD eventhough he died just prior to these releases actually hitting store shelves it was HIS ok that made them happen.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

P.S.
This information is from memory based on an interview I read a while ago on a website. The interview was with someone who worked very closely with Kubrick ... sorta like his right hand man as I recall. The interview happened somewhere between Kubrick's death the release of the 9-pack WS remastered DVD set from Warner Bros. I honestly forget now where I read this rather informative and intersting interview but I want to say that it was on DVDREVIEW.COM

[ishtar1138]

However Kubrick did finally give the thumbs up to all his films being re-done in widescreen for DVD eventhough he died just prior to these releases actually hitting store shelves it was HIS ok that made them happen.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

thank you FulciLives , I did not know this. i'm really looking forward to the anamorphic wide screen (cropped) Shining. any idea when this is coming out?

[FulciLives]

However Kubrick did finally give the thumbs up to all his films being re-done in widescreen for DVD eventhough he died just prior to these releases actually hitting store shelves it was HIS ok that made them happen.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

thank you FulciLives , I did not know this. i'm really looking forward to the anamorphic wide screen (cropped) Shining. any idea when this is coming out?

It would seem that my memory was mostly but not 100% correct.

I did a websearch and in just a couple of minutes I found that interview I was talking about. I can't believe I found it so easily LOL

Here is the link ---> CLICK HERE

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Nilfennasion]

FulciLives:

Nice job on the screen caps. As you say, they cannot prove on their own that the director did not intend the films to be shown the way they are in widescreen. But from looking at some of the open-matte versions, it doesn't look likely. The only one that shows anything that could be considered vaguely important to the image would be scene 4.

Regarding RoboCop, the story is not so straightforward there. Paul Verhoeven shot the film with 1.66:1 in mind. Being that he had previously shot around half a dozen or more films in Europe at the time, this was the ratio he was used to composing for. Orion Pictures, however, demanded that the film be screened at 1.85:1, since that was the American standard. Criterion transferred the LaserDisc at 1.66:1 as per Verhoeven's wishes. MGM decided the theatrical ratio was a better idea. Who is right on this one is a matter for extended debate.

adam:

I am not going to bother responding to most of that since you seem to have made up your mind that everyone who sees this suit as a load of crap is wrong. Except one thing.

What happens in Region 1 eventually affects everyone in the world where transfers are concerned. If MGM are scared into releasing Fool Screen versions of their product in spite of the director's wishes, then others will follow. From the screencaps we've already seen, it is bleeding obvious to everyone that this suit should not even get into a court. You assume the customers in this suit know anything about widescreen. I think we've established now that this is not the case.

[vhelp]

I don't understand this nonsense about the issue w/ the Aspect Ratio,
but you know.., first it's their source, and second, aren't they the
one's have the right to *present* a given source as is (weather
we beleive otherwise) ?? true or false, I guess it all doesn't really
matter all that much.
.
Take for instance, footage from a given camera (be it Studios/Cinemas
or our home DV cams) the bottom line is *who* is in control at the
time of release, and what their aim is, as far as "directors cut" to
give us.
.
So, if they say, "..here is our widescreen version.. yada yada.." then
that is what it is, no matter what lies beneath the footage of specs.

Maybe this all sounds *cheatful* or *deceptive* (and I agree, it is to
an extent) but if those sources were mine, and I gave them out to be
distributed as such (whatever "attributes" to sell them under, at a
given time -- ie, WS and/or FS) then it shouldn't matter, because all
is true. Its just a matter of what you perceave, and at the same time,
understand.
.
My The Fifth Element is a good example (I suppose) because the
versions I have are, WS and FS, (dvd and vhs) and with my VHS FS version,
matching up the senes (AR doesn't really matter here) I did notice that
there were areas (top/bottom) in the VHS version (in some scenes) that were
not in found in the ws DVD set. I now have my THIRD copy of this
movie, The Ultimate Edition - - I picked it up early this week.
Its another SuperBIT version, 2.35 Anamorphic Widescreen version.
You can thank Resident Evil for this DVD's excuse of being produced.

As long as the aspect ratio *does* come out correct, then it really
doesn't matter much either. Aspect Ratios are (in a way) sneaky in
the things of one's perspective.
.
It's amazing how one can take a 4:3AR footage, and make it 2.35AR for
a widescreen tv set, and it looks and acts (is) 2.35AR on as WS set,
and it's another amazing thing, when we can take a 4:3AR and *still*
make it a 4:3AR, but played on a WS (in 16:9) in widescreen view, but *still*
in 4:3AR (filling the whole 16:9 screen (left to right) and *still* look 4:3AR,
but inside a 16:9 container (WS tv set) and sell it (demo/view it) as a 2.35 or
4:3 aspect ratio - -
.
That works.., in both cases. And neither is false. It's the illusion
that we get lost in. Anyways.



.. I gotta get me a widescreen tv set soon, so that I can perform my own
.. aspect ratio tests and theories with. In the mean time, I remain within
.. a certain dizzy 'ness about such things.

-vhelp

[proxyx99]

This is an illustration of how studios have manipulated public into craving for a true "director's" view (which is of course only WS)while later shamelessly catering to those freshly created indiscriminate fans of WS in any way the could. To those anything that says WS is the only "true" way of enjoying a motion picture and as such proven to be an easy sell. LOL

[FulciLives]

This is an illustration of how studios have manipulated public into craving for a true "director's" view (which is of course only WS)while later shamelessly catering to those freshly created indiscriminate fans of WS in any way the could. To those anything that says WS is the only "true" way of enjoying a motion picture and as such proven to be an easy sell. LOL

I am not exaxtly sure how to take this.

It seems that you are either making fun of those that wish to view a film in it's OAR (Original Aspect Ratio) or you are tickled pink that the movie studios have cheated and fooled us.

Or maybe both.

Either way I don't like it.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Nilfennasion]

Oh right. I'm a sucker because I object to some moron behind an editing desk deciding I don't need to see the other half of the picture. I'm a sucker because I respect the fact that directors don't necessarily want to show an empty negative area. Rightio.

[BJ_M]

one born every minute

[adam]

Nilfennasion, I'm only going to say this one more time. MGM has agreed to this settlement. They have agreed to pay out millions of dollars over this, and to exchange these DVDs if requested. You honestly think they would agree to this if the Plaintiff's just misunderstood the transfer process? Its not going to trial...its over. This precious proof that you insist on seeing will never see the light of day. Its going to be sealed along with the record as a term of the settlement. That is what MGM is paying millions of dollars for.

[Nilfennasion]

I must have missed that part, in which case, I apologise for the argumentative. I still have a big problem with believing the case had any merit, and I believe this is going to be a big setback for the cause of home video, but I will leave it at that.

[adam]

Alright, after reading around some more I think I know what they are suing about. The movies themselves are fine, the problem is just with the advertising. Look on just about any MGM DVD cover and you see an image sort of like this... (not an actual example from MGM DVD, just a similar image I found.)



And the language that widescreen preserves up to 50% more of the picture on the sides. So on these movies shot in 1.85:1 and 1.66:1, this is incorrect since the width of the picture is the same. They are falsely advertising the characteristics of the widescreen transfer. I think its the picture that killed them. It clearly shows the fullscreen being less wide when its not.

This was what I initially thought the suit was about, but then I kept reading this language about how the widescreen version was just a cropped P&S. Where did I read that? Looking on the notice site it doesn't say this. Did they change it, cause I could have sworn it used the words pan and scan somewhere?

[FulciLives]

Adam,

I didn't actually read the legalize until just now as before I was going by what was being said in this thread.

I do think that what you just said is true now that I have read it (the "complaint" or whatever you call it) and that is totally ******* bullshit.

Stupid.

Dumb.

Another reason why people do not like lawyers.

I did get on that CD price thing and got some money out of it (not much but someone else mentioned $14.00 and that sounds about right) but no way am I signing on this thing because it is just plain STUPID.

Blah.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Nilfennasion]

Ah yes, I have seen many, many of the screenshots in MGM booklets where they first state that Widescreen preserves X amount of picture information, and then follows with that kind of screenshot. In the Region 4 versions, every film in those screenshots is shown at a ratio of 2.35:1, regardless of whether this is the correct ratio or not, with a red viewfinder in the middle. However, the literature quite explicitly says "depending on how it was shot". Don't know if this is the case in Region 1, but it may be the reason why no lawsuits have erupted here.

However, this does nothing to counter the viewpoint put forth by myself and MichaelD on his site. This suit is a load of rubbish, with a bunch of people capitalising on their own ignorance and demonstrating why toasters have warnings on them these days against use near a bathtub. If the "depending on how it was shot" clause is not in MGM's Region 1 literature, you can bet that it will be in future pressings. Not to mention that as the 1.78:1 ratio becomes the de facto standard, the issue will progressively become moot. If they were really concerned about transfers being cut top and bottom, destroying the true picture composition, they should have sued Warner Vision and EMI Music...

...but then, that might not net them so much cash since these guys are basically small time. Although it would have a much more solid basis in fact.

[chas0039]

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 ..

A proposed settlement is an agreement between both parties to settle. Unless a judge, for some reason, sees a problem, this case will be over.

[adam]

In the future MGM will probably just not put this picture and language on DVDs shot in these aspect ratios. They probably just used a template for all their DVD covers and didn't really think about it, but they should have known better.

I agree the underlying reasoning for the suit is bullshit. However, legally it is a completely meritorious claim. Misrepresenting the qualities of the DVD violates various warranties, which in and of itself is a violation of the DTPA. And they used a misleading sample (the picture) which is also a violation of the DTPA. And then any false "statement" can constitute common law fraud under the right circumstances as well. Basically, this silly little practice of theirs violates the DTPA on multiple levels. They probably would have had to pay alot more if this went to trial.

Just about all DTPA claims look like this one, ie: no real damages and a bullshit reason for suit. The idea is more about getting merchants to use honest advertising than it is about compensating the victims.

[Gurm]

And that's a VALID and GOOD reason to file suits. Yeah, it helps make America a more litigious place. But without such suits, what incentive would there be for advertisers to be honest? (And if you think people will just be honest all by themselves, I have a bridge in Brooklyn and some waterfront property to sell you!)

[ehmjay]

Personally i think people decided to file suit because wiith all the studios suing because of downloading movies and how its stealing and such, people are shouting back saying "your lying to us," (whether they are or not is irrelevant for this point) "so two can play at this game. we'll fight you guys for 'stealing' from us".

personally i dont care what happens to my film. i like widescreen over full screen. i prefer the shape. however it does bug me to think that all this is, is the pan and scanned reformatted 1.33:1 ratio with the tops chopped off so it looks like 1.85:1, but im not sure if thats the case. who knows.

[Nilfennasion]

DVD distributors have a great incentive to be honest. It's called natural market forces. In America, indie distributors seem to take a little pride in their workmanship. The two most well-known indie distributors in Australia, on the other hand, are famous because they don't. Given that professional MPEG encoding solutions start in the six-figure range, there is a lot of incentive to get crap out there as cheap and quick as possible. On VHS, this might have worked, but DVD is a different market where everyone wants the best possible version. Ergo, distributors who don't take pride in the workmanship of their product don't make money. That's the natural order of it.

chopped off so it looks like 1.85:1, but im not sure if thats the case.

It has been established that this is NOT the case.

I agree that MGM was opening up potential for a whole lot of trouble with the way the Widescreen explanation was presented in their booklets. In the case of 1.85:1 films, they probably should not have even had the screenshot, but just said "preserving the manner in which this film was shown theatrically", which is the language every other distributor uses. Oh well. At least we can agree that the only merit in this case is in the legalities.

[dphirschler]

FWIW, here caps from "A Fish Called Wanda". It comes with both full screen and widescreen versions. The full screen is just the open mat or soft mat as described by John. I picked this frame because is clearly shows him wearing pants which kills the gag. Fortunately, this area should wind up in the overscan area and he will still appear to be naked.

The widescreen version is cropped. I have no problem with this. Of course, I would be happier if the widescreen version was anamorphic.

full screen


wide screen


Darryl

[Nilfennasion]

That aside, there are other good reasons why MGM deserves a caning for their DVDs, which has nothing to do with the wrong aspect ratio. Often, they demonstrate that they just don't give a damn about a film's fans. RoboCop is a classic example. Aside from being the wrong aspect ratio (1.78:1 instead of 1.66:1), it has a lousy audio mix (many lines of dialogue are partially or fully inaudible, and the subwoofer is now-you-hear-it-now-you-don't) plus an example of seamless branching gone horribly wrong. It's like they did not realise that even if the viewer would bother with the theatrical edit again, the director's cut would get a 100:1 viewing ratio by comparison. Since I bought the Criterion DVD, which is far superior in all respects save the video, I have not watched the theatrical edit once. What is it about DVD distributors that make them so ignorant about true customer wants?

[dphirschler]

That aside, there are other good reasons why MGM deserves a caning for their DVDs, which has nothing to do with the wrong aspect ratio. Often, they demonstrate that they just don't give a damn about a film's fans.

I can agree with this. There is no reason why "A Fish Called Wanda" was not at least anamorphic. It was after all a two-sided disc. To MGM's credit, they did a great job with "The Terminator" special edition DVD as I have said before.


Darryl

[Rookie64]

I can list several other examples of this from Universal and Columbia Pictures as well.


This is something I pointed out a good while back when much was cut from nude scenes in films.

American Graffiti was one of the worst transfers I've ever seen compared to early '90s VHS editions...where most of the actors faces are cut during closeups....not to mention the poor color.

[proxyx99]

I don't own "The Terminator" DVD but if a MGM's "great job" (as posted above) was to crop a picture and offer it as WS then I can only shake my head... I guess that almost anyone in this forum can perform equally well "upgrading" their movies to WS.

[Nilfennasion]

Can you provide any better an example of not getting it, proxy?

James Cameron shot The Terminator on a 1.33:1 negative with the intention of screening it at 1.85:1, which is standard with Academy Flat films. Regardless of whether he hard-matted it or not, that means the proper way to see it is 1.85:1 unless Cameron tells us otherwise (which he may have done... he has said that he prefers the full frame version of many of his Super 35 films, only The Terminator was not shot with Super 35).