PLEASE NOTE: Michael D's is currently in READ ONLY MODE. Anything submitted will simply not be written to the database.
Lots of stuff is still broken, but at least reviews can now be looked up and read.
That's My Say

That's My Say

The So-Called MGM DVD Settlement - by Michael D

I've recently received numerous emails about the "MGM DVD settlement" (http://www.mgmdvdsettlement.com/). This is a major disaster, but not for the reasons that would seem apparent at first glance.

Here's my assessment of the whole sorry scenario:

MGM (and many other DVD producing studios for that matter) have been selling DVDs in an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 and 1.66:1 labelled as "widescreen". This seems fair enough - after all, the image does indeed appear wider than the standard TV ratio of 1.33:1. Here's the rub, though. Some people have been comparing their old VHS copies of movies with the "widescreen" DVD versions and finding out that, shock horror, the image isn't actually wider, but rather cropped at the top and bottom.

RIPPED OFF say these people.

FALSE ADVERTISING say these people.

CLASS ACTION say these people.

BOLLOCKS say I.

Here's the thing. When a 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 aspect ratio movie is shot, most of the time it is shot with film which is in the standard TV aspect ratio of 1.33:1. When the cinematographer and the director look through the camera lens, they see an image in an aspect ratio of 1.33:1. However, remember that these artists are creating work which is destined to be shown in the cinema, at a wider aspect ratio. Hence, there are markings on the viewfinder which show the creative people the theatrical aspect ratio. They compose their work to this wider ratio, not the full 1.33:1 available on the negative.

When the movie is shown theatrically, mattes are placed on the full frame image to blank out the unwanted image area.

Why would they do things this way?

Answer: VHS and TV.

VHS and TV demand 1.33:1 images (although thankfully this is changing). The simplest way to convert a 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 movie to 1.33:1 is to simply open up the top and bottom mattes on the original film. No important information is lost (as it is with the pan and scan process), since the movie was entirely composed within the frame of the negative. The only problem is that unnecessary information is now present at the top and the bottom of the image. Information that the director and cinematographer did not want you to see theatrically. Information that could well destroy the composition of a given image. Information that sometimes inadvertently includes Mr Boom Microphone and other unwanted movie nasties.

So, yes, "widescreen" transfers of 1.85:1 movies are not wider than their full frame counterparts. They are, however, more artistically correct, truer to the director's and cinematographer's intent, and how these movies were shown theatrically. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe these transfers as "original theatrical aspect ratio" transfers rather than "widescreen" transfers.

So, back to the proposed class settlement. It is important to note that the quality of the DVDs under question is not at issue. The DVDs have all been correctly produced. They are not faulty. There will be no recall of the DVDs. There will be no remastering of the DVDs with a wider image - no wider image exists. They are not simply "pan and scan" DVDs which have been further cropped top and bottom. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE DVDs. The only problem is that some have taken issue with the packaging of these DVDs describing them as "widescreen" when, very much on a technicality, they are not.

It is a truly sad day in a world gone mad when studios are punished for doing the right thing and releasing DVDs in their original theatrical aspect ratios. Whilst I am sure that there would be some legal merit in the class settlement, there is surely no moral merit in it at all.