mcharro3

So, MGM's 'Semi-Tough':

It's been out for a few years, but I always passed on it because it wasn't anamorphic. Today I was in my local video store and noticed it had a new cover and a new, cheap low price. I checked the back and it was listed as being 16x9, soooo I figured this was another non-announced MGM upgrade like 'Back to School' (which was non-anamorphic, then re-released without fanfare 16x9 enhanced).

I bought it, went home, popped it in, and lo and behold - it's NOT enhanced for my widescreen television!

Now, obviously I could go back and exchange the disc where I bought it, but I'm a little steamed at MGM here - this is fradulent advertising, plain and simple. Am I wrong? Am I getting cranky over nothing?

Please advise.

Tarantino

Something studios are doing more and more these days.

I say sue them.

= J

chemosh6969

It said widescreen which it was.

It never said enhanced which it wasn't.

Live and learn young grasshopper.

ChristianB

Either a) keep it or b) return it. Simple...

Christian

Tarantino

It said it was 16x9.

D-Ball

16x9 is just a ratio. If it said 16x9 enhanced or anamorphic, then that would be a different story.

Perkinsun Dzees

You should take them to small claims court. You could probably finagle a few bucks out of them if you get a sympathetic judge.

Mr. Salty

Yeah, that's good advice --- pay a ~$75 filing fee to raise a stink over a bargain-bin DVD. The first question the judge will ask is if the store was approached first about rectifying the situation with a refund, which is the correct first course of action.

renaldow

Most small claims court won't allow you to sue somebody for more than the damages to you. As Mr. Salty pointed out, a large filing fee for a $9-15 (OP never said what he paid, did he?) lawsuit makes no sense and will do absolutely nothing for anybody.

This kind of thing happens, and it sucks when it does. Other than taking it back or writing the studio about it, there's not a lot you can do.

Easy

I don't know where you people shop but 99.9% of stores in the US will NOT take back an opened DVD. We need better consumer protection laws in the US. I don't know if the OP is in the right here but there are of plenty of instances when the studio lied (intentionally or not) about the specs. I can also think of plenty of instances where the PQ was so bad the consumer should have been allowed a refund.

mcharro3

Okay, I'll GLADLY complain to MGM about this. Anybody got an email address or phone number for me? I'm in Canada, too - don't know if that makes a difference or not for contact information...

chemosh6969

So you are going to complain because it was advertised correctly on the back of the box? What do you expect them to say? Sorry we didn't make it enhanced even though we never said it was. Or maybe, sorry the specs on the box matched those on the disc but not the specs that you made up in your mind.

Just because it is 16x9 doesn't automatically make it enhanced. There are plenty of dvds in the world like this. Are you going to complain when you get those also? If so, avoid buying Audition and Home Alone among others.

mcharro3

Dear chemosh6969:

I take the little '16x9' on the back to mean the film is enhanced. If it isn't, then at best MGM is being a little sneaky. I have a ton of other discs where there's a '16x9' mention - and they're all anamorphic. FYI: the store where I bought the disc in question had the older version for sale right next to it. On that one, there was no 16x9 mention. On the new one, there was. I also have a few other non-anamorphic MGM discs and guess what? No 16x9 mention at all.

Anyway, sorry to bother you. I had no idea one had to be an expert on all technical aspects of DVDs to post here or ask a question.

chemosh6969

16x9 doesn't automaticall mean that it is enhanced.

MGM isn't being sneaky because while the film is 16x9, it isn't enhanced. Does this mean that MGM should label it full screen even though it isn't?

You are just assuming and we all know what happens when you assume.

The same thing happened to me after I got my big screen. I went to watch Audition and it wasn't enhanced. Then I figured out that just because it was 16x9 doesn't make it enhanced.

It sucks, but nobody said either of our discs were enhanced so there is no point in complaining that the box was misleading.

chipmac

I do see MGM and any other studio that simply states 16x9 on their case as being sneaky. To me all aspect ratios should be stated as a ratio such as 1.78:1, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. Yes 16:9 and 1.78:1 are essentially the same but when most all other cases and studios only use 16x9 or 16:9 to mean anamorphic I do believe they're intentionally being vague. There are many MGM discs I've passed on in the bargain bins because I wasn't certain if they were anamorphic or not. They do sell discs labeled 16x9 that are anamorphic as well as ones that are not. So you can never be sure without getting confirmation from a review that has already seen the disc. They should simply state the AR and whether the disc is anamorphic like other studios do. They just might make more sales that way.

renaldow

Sure they will, but it depends upon the reason. I think if he said the PQ sucked, they wouldn't take it back. If he explained that the back had it listed as 16x9, and it wasn't (which is a debatable fact whether it refers to anamorphic) and that it was false packaging on the part of the studio, he would stand a good chance at getting his money back or at least store credit. It is a YMMV thing though, I'll admit.

If I was that enraged by it, I would definitely try it. There's nothing to lose.

i86time

CC took back an open dvd of mine. I purchased Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation (old cover version). On the back, it lists the running time as 94 min. (international uncut version, I guess you could say). But the disc in fact had the 86 min. US cut. This was about a week or so before the re-released (new cover), so I emailed CTHV. I asked if they knew that the disc was mislabeled and if the re-release coming out, which also listed a 94 min. running time, was the uncut version. After almost a week of not hearing anything, I just took it back to CC and received a refund, no hassles. About a week after that, I received a response from CTHV. They said the only version offered by them ran 86:50 and that the cover was incorrect, as they did not have the 94 min. version. So, companies make mistakes and some stores will take them back, just try.