::DVDdude.net
MGM
Sometimes, well OK, a lot of times, I just sit back and wonder what the hell is wrong with people.
There was a time, and it wasn't all that long ago, when if you fell down and broke your arm, you didn't grow dollar signs in your eyes as you compiled a list of all of the different companies and people you could sue.
But times have changed and now many people find that it's simply easier to earn their money in court, rather than by actual hard work and effort. What's worse is that companies have to spend millions of dollars to create disclaimers for their products in an effort to second-guess the many ways consumers will try to exploit their own stupidity.
Hair dryers now helpfully tell us not to run the device while bathing, because if they don't, the family of some idiot who tried to dry his hair while showering will bankrupt the company in court.
There is a lot of talk about the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, but maybe the search for intelligent life should begin on planet Earth.
So what does all of this ranting have to do with DVD?
More than you might think. MGM is the latest victim of the lawsuit insanity. The controversy in this case involves widescreen and full frame films. (You can read a discussion of the lawsuit over at the Home Theater Forum)
By now, most of you are probably familiar with the differences between a theatrical aspect ratio, and a "traditional" television aspect ratio. Basically, the theater screen is wider, and therefore shows more information at the sides.
What you may not know is that the individual frames of film actually have a ratio closer to television than to a movie theater screen. Given that, there are a couple of ways for filmmakers to achieve a widescreen image. One method is to put mattes on the camera to crop the image as it's being filmed (called "hard matting"). Another method is to put the mattes on the projector and crop the image as it's being shown in the theater (known as "soft matting").
The difference between these two methods is at the heart of this lawsuit against MGM. On their DVD packaging, MGM has been claiming that the widescreen versions of their films show more picture information than the full-frame versions.
In the case of hard matted films, this is absolutely true. The only way to fill a standard television screen with the image from a hard matted film is to zoom in on the image and cut off portions of the sides (also known as the dreaded "pan and scan" method).
Soft matted films actually provide an alternative, however. Since the wide screen matting for these films occurs at the projection stage, the film actually contains picture information on the top and bottom that you never see in the theater. Rather than chopping off the sides of their films, some filmmakers and studios prefer to simply show the unmatted image on home video.
However, it should be noted that the directors never intended for this extra picture information to be seen. In fact, these areas of the frame often contain boom mikes, unfinished sets, or at the very least, sloppy composition.
So, basically what happened with this lawsuit is that some guy noticed that MGM was using this blanket "widescreen shows you more picture" line on all of its discs, but that soft-matted films shown in full frame actually included more top and bottom information.
Granted, MGM should have been more clear. A better message would have been that the widescreen image presents the film as the director intended it to be seen, but it should also be understood that it seems pretty clear that MGM's intent was never to deceive or mislead the public.
Yet, rather than take the time to gain some education and understanding of the true differences between widescreen and full frame, someone felt it would be better to try to earn a quick paycheck.
One would think that there are far more important things going on the world than filing lawsuits over the image composition of a form a entertainment. To their credit, MGM is admitting no wrong doing, and they are proposing a settlement, whereby people who feel as though they have been caused great emotional trauma by having viewed a full frame image that displays more information (unintended information, that is) than the widescreen version, can send in their DVDs for an alternate title, or a credit. This proposed settlement would apply to anyone who has purchased an MGM title during a certain timeframe.
Additionally, MGM offers the opportunity to opt out of this settlement, for those who are enlightened enough to understand the differences between a hard matte, a soft matte, full frame, widescreen and the director's intent.
For my part, I will be opting out of this settlement. I would encourage anyone reading this to do the same. This lawsuit is frivolous, ridiculous and only stands to further damage a studio that is already facing financial troubles.
MGM has created a Settlement Information Page where you can learn more details about the lawsuit, which titles are included and how you can opt out.
-- Robert Wurth
