milkdog

The T3 widescreen DVD, framed at 2.35:1 shows much less info than the full frame.

Here's some comparisons:

http://maxim.skyphix.com/t3.html

People at TheArnoldFans.com remember seeing things in the theater that are lacking in the top and bottom of the frame of the WS DVD.

Is the FF open matte or did they simply crop the top and bottom of the frame for the WS DVD?

milkdog

Here's another one:

http://maxim.skyphix.com/t3_2.html

This is the one that guys are remembering...for obvious reasons. I didn't see T3 in the theater. Do you remember seeing her topless in the theatrical print?

Adam Tyner

...but look at all of the people who insist that there was more graphic footage in theatrical exhibitions of Hannibal and the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre than there really was.

Class316

I’m trying to remember if I saw those breasts when I watched it a few months back but I can’t seem to think that far back. Dammit why do studios always screw stuff up in these manners!!

Snowmaker

Will someone please address this issue?? This may be the only time I ever want to get a FF version.

Josh-da-man

There's a big thread on the HTF about this issue. Many there seem to think that the image was zoom-boxed -- that the 2.35:1 image was cropped on all sides into a tighter 2.35:1 image.

Since this film was shot Super-35, it shouldn't be surprising that there is more visual information in the 4:3 version. But the issue at hand seems to be that the widescreen image shown in theaters was altered for the DVD release.

Josh-da-man

The HTF thread can be found here: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=168176

Class316

Thank God I never opened the DVD! If I need to trade for FS I can simply go there, show the invoice, and they'll trade it. Open Matte FS is still better than cropped WS

moviezzz

The widescreen is the same as what I saw in the theatre.

Class316

How come the issue was so much more certain with BTTF and not this?

fumanstan

Because there were previous releases of BTTF and not T3 to compare. Unless someone wants to search for an old illegal cam version of the movie and compare (which i'm surprised hasn't happened).

Class316

ohh...right.

But these cam versions are probably also misframed in their own way.

chanster

Member aaryn posted some screen caps form a telesync version and the DVD. If these are correct, something is wrong with the DVD. If that is the case, I firmly believe that Mostow went in and changed the DVD ala Mulholland Drive to "protect" Loken. (Although there really isn't much there)

I don't think anyone else has noticed any glaring problems besides the opening with Loken.

(Right now, this link isn't working due to high bandwith usage)
http://www.angelfire.com/moon/daehkcid/t3.html

Class316

That does not make sense. Because if they're going to censor, then why censor the WS version and keep it on the FS version???

chanster

Good point. I really don't know what the deal is. The only thing I can think off is that Mostow didn't realize the FULL SCREEN would show as much as it really does.

Class316

It seems to be an open and shut case. Loads of people remember seeing the “nudity” in theaters. So if that is misframed, it’s not too hasty to assume the whole movie is misframed!! The breasts is just something people would remember more. Dammit this really really sucks. Therefore, neither the WS nor the FS version are OAR!

Class316

something else: http://www3.sympatico.ca/vankiss/t3.html

chanster

Yes, lots of people remember lots of things they think they saw in theaters. Lots of people swore they saw "TO BE CONTINUED" on Back to the Future but it was never there in the theaters. Just becauise a bunch of folks think they remember something - That does not make it and "open and shut case"

It would seem to me that nudity would be one thing that is most open for interpretation - they think they saw the boobs but the did not.

I am not defending anything here, but your wild assertions about "an open and shut case" aren't quite right

I though the DVD looked like I remember what I saw in theaters, but what do I know?

caiman

I would bet my life that I saw the breasts in the theatrical version (I was paying very careful attention). In fact, when I got the DVD, I noticed right away that the shots were different.

But I don't really give a crap.

fumanstan

Looking at the comparison in the link given, it doesn't look like there's much of a difference at all. On principle it sucks, but looking at the extremely small change, i could care less.

Rypro 525

guys for the last time, there is no nudity, everything is covered up by hair, I do firmly remeber the ass shot clearly, but don't remeber exactly how far down it went.

TomOpus

^^^ what he said.

I don't know what the big deal is over hair-covered breasts. Go watch The Blue Lagoon and knock yourself out.

Imodium

....why?

You see nothing. Not only is the nip covered by hair, almost both breasts are entirely covered.

purplechoe

Now that you guys mention it...

I never saw the movie in the theatre, but when I saw it on dvd last week I kept thinking that the framing seemed to be off. It seemed to me like it was to much zoomed in on such an "epic" scale movie. The whole framing just seemed a little odd to me. Now reading this thread I definitely think something isn't right with this dvd.

Sure I would like a little more nudity, but that's not the point. Honest!

BigPete

Look again at http://maxim.skyphix.com/t3_2.html - there is definitely nipple on the left breast, but it appears to have been either covered w/ makeup or edited out in post-processing. Unless you were only referring to the two widescreen versions, in which case you are correct.