also this isn't the first movie to have digital body parts removal. Charlies Angels full throttal anyone?
I'm not gonna boycott or buy a full frame dvd over one brief scene.

No, everything's not covered by hair, because the shot of her breasts isn't even in the WS DVD, so there's nothing to cover up.

It's not about one brief scene! The whole thing could be misframed!

I doubt the entire thing is misframed. I don't remeber everything, but the theatrical expierence and the pics of the dvd that i've seen seem to be accurate.

No nipples, No sale!!!

so let's assume the film was shot open-matte as it most likely was because of all the special effects.

the easiest way to figure out if there is an issue here is to take the full frame image and apply a 2.35:1 matte to it.

that should answer the question. or has it already been successfully answered.

either way, if you really want the experience, buy the FF and then put the matte up on your tv.

Just because the film was SUper35 does not mean it is 'open matte' 100%.

Sure some scenes as pictured may show more top & bottom inofrmation. Yet the sides are still cut off. Meanwhile other shots may show alittle of this or that,but still be severely cropped & missing picture information.

Don't believe me? Check out the feature of the T2 ultimate edition which demos side by side Super35.

Yhe 2:35 image IS the correct way to view the film.

The rumors of 'zoomboxing' are just that rumors! Heck people made up the 'zoom boxed' rumor for Big Trouble In Little China claiming all four sides were cropped compared to what they saw in theaters. Zoombox is not even a real term(at least someone who works for the studios claimed that durring the Big Trouble fiasco).


Now I will say for a FACT that I saw the film in theaters & the way it is framed on the dvd is the EXACT way it was framed IN theaters. My friend even commented on his dissapointment that you did not see her fully nude & what you do see,is really dark. I watched closely as well & nope,you did not see her breasts clearly,hair was covering them,it was dark..& pretty brief anyway(why do movies cop out with nudity today,but violence is always ok???).

Remember people trying to claim Hannibal as 'edited' on dvd & deleted footage of the brain pealing? Guess what? That was NEVER IN the film. They ThOUGHT they saw it,but did NOT. Yet HTF had a 100+ thread going on the debate,where everyone was claiming they saw it in theaters & the dvd was edited,when it was not. Remember,your mind can play tricks on you.


Of course thanks to jumping to conclusions & panicing over nothing really. Alot of misinformation is going about..& alot will be to ignorant to hear the truth & people will start to believe the dvd really is 'misframed' & 'defective' or some absurd conspiracy theories of studio PC freaks out to take nudity away from us at all costs.

More nudity is a good thing. Yet if that means the rest of the film is heavily cropped & pan & scanned(Yes that still exists with Super35 'fullframe' presentations!). Then I can live without the little extra glimpse of some breasts or bush,if it means the rest of the film is correctly framed. + In this case,it's really no big deal,since the nude sequence is so brief. Would you really want to destroy the composition of the rest of the film for less than two seconds of breast action?


Now if say something like The Cheerleaders,which was shot 1:33 & matted for theaters were missing a huge amount of the nudity. Then yes I would prefer the unmatted ersion. Afterall,nudity is the main selling point of the film. What is an exploitation nudie fest with all the nudity cropped off? Boring! :)

Good news is,very little nudity is missing from the matted version of The Cheerleaders,thank you god!

Yet see there is a difference between The Cheerleaders & T3. T3 is not a nudie film..& only has a very brief 5 seconds or less tease of a nude woman/man. Meanwhile Cheerleaders has non-stop rampant full nudity from begining to end. So if you took the nudity out of the nudie film,it would be not so entertaining anymore. Meanwhile T3 lack of nudity in the OAR version is no big deal,since you are not watching the film for the nudity(though still nice to see:)).



So all you people out there drooling over a brief blur of a tit shot. Grow up...& rent some real nudie films. There are plenty out there,that will make you feel stupid for making such a big fuss over much ado about nothing with T3. So go see Cheerleaders:unrated,Basic Instint:unrated,Showgirls or many of the late night skinamax flicks if you want to see nudity mmkay?

Xmen2 is the same way. I saw this in theaters and the dvd is missing some picture from the bottom which is strange. This is one of the only times ive noticed this.

For what it's worth, put me down as someone who saw no breasts in the theater, and believe me - it's not like I wasn't looking.

I do think this is a perfect reason, however, to not necessarily refer to Joe 6 Pack as a "foolscreen lover" or something to that effect. I mean, flame me if you must, but on a 4:3 screen, I have absolutely, positively no objection to watching an open matte fullscreen film. (And, incidentally, neither does one of the greatest directors ever. I assume Stanley Kubrick has some credibility around here.) Now on a widescreen TV, that's a different story. I would only want to watch a widescreen film - in order to avoid black bars on the sides and to better fill the screen.

However, the original point years ago for what made widescreen superior was you get more picture. Now that mantra has somewhat changed to "OAR. OAR. It's what the director intended." I think you're going to have a hard time changing a fullscreen lover's mind with that philosophy unless there's a freakin' boom mike appearing at the top of the picture. But if he sees more of Kristanna Loken, he's probably not going to notice that boom mike. -wink-

So you're saying here you SAW the hair cover the breasts in theaters???

First off, the ass shot is still in the movie...all versions..plain as daylight.

Secondly, I will say this again - I believe the trailer showed more tits than the actual movie..believe it or not...so it is entirely possible that people are mixing the too.

Finally, I don't really care at this point. Let HTF pull their hair out over this, maybe it will expose some nipples over there.

A more worthy application of fullscreen nudity vs. widescreen nudity would be a side-by-side comparison of the director's cut for Monster's Ball. I've compared both, and the fullscreen does indeed show more.

somebody over in home theater forum says he or someone he knows compared a bootleg DVD from the theaters and the DVD and said only the framing in the beginning has been altered, which lends credence to my theory that Mostow changed it to hide the nudity on the DVD.

of course, it is entirely possible that mostow overlooked the full-screen edition.

Looking at the screenshots from the links posted, it doesn't look like the shot even went down far enough to show most of the breasts.

Arghh...I hate threads like this. If people saw more in the theater it's because the projectionist had the movie misframed, NOT because the widescreen DVD is misframed! 99% of the time you see boom mikes or other such things in the theater is becasue the film is misframed in the projector.

Also, the original post is misleading...the full frame DVD does NOT show more than the widescreen...the widescreen shows more information to the right and left than the additional information being shown top to bottom by the full frame version.

You guys seriously need a life. Wow so you dont see the hair covered breasts in the the widescreen version. BIG DEAL! Most ppl are making this a mountain out of a mole hill. Im sorry but it comes to a point were some zealots just go overboard. So what if I'm missing some information on the top and bottom ends of the screen. Its not like they are inhibiting my view of Arnold blowing s*** up with his big machine guns.

So we got three theories here:

1)The WS DVD is not misframed at all

2)The WS DVD is misframed

3)The WS DVD is censored and they forgot to censor the FS

Class #1 is the correct answer.

To answer the persons question. No I did not see 'hair covered breasts' durring the up close section of the sequence. Yet you can catch just a tiny brief mere invisible glimpse of the top of her chest..& well hello,look how her hair is styled,pretty obvious they would cover her breasts in some way. Then add in the far away pitch black full body view,you can also see that her hair is covering her breasts.


Yet again this issue is just being blown way out of proporation & I think some people have too much time on their hands. End of story:)

Why dont someone just download a crappy camcorder recorded copy of T3 off of Kazaa or something to finally resolve this?

yea! Wish someone would do that already to shut everyone up (I won't cause I don't want to open the DVD)

You know, you keep saying that, and I don't understand why.

If, and this is a big if, the movie is misframed, its not a big deal at all. It hasn't affected anyone's enjoyment of the movie. Even the most die-hard HTF fanatic hasn't said it changed their opinions of the film.

If you want to exchange it for a fullscreen - you are still going to see a cropped version, just cropped differently.

And if the movie is misframed, and Warner acknowledges it, there is nothing they can do about it. Lots of movies are misframed on DVD ..see Reservoir Dogs as the biggest example. The most you can hope for is a replacement disk, but that rarely happens

Or you could wait for a re-release which probably won't happen for a minimium of 2 years.

which is why I'll get something else,

I can live with that.

Isn't it just the same deal as how they shot Air Force One? in the 4:3 format and then just cropped to fit 16:9...Super35 style?

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...rforceone4.jpg

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...rforceone3.jpg

Just open the damn dvd already enjoy! The dvd is NOT misframed & thats the easiest way to put it,but no one wants to believe that for sure.

I even asked my friend Paul who saw the film with me in theaters & bought the dvd. He noticed NOTHING different about the film at all & still commented that you see nothing at the begining of that lady. Seems to be correctly framed as in theaters to myself then.

now I know theaters do not always framed properly. The biggest disaster was House of 1000 Corpses. The dumbass projectionist cropped the picture severely,that a huge amount of picture information was missing. Everything seemed so tight & badly framed. The opening title cards hung off the screen,could not make out etc. When I saw the dvd,I was blown away at the difference,since it was correctly framed now.


Yet I know this is NOT a HO1C incident. I doubt a studio would screw up a dvd that much in this day & age....& can say without a doubt after viewing the dvd in question. It is framed exactly as it was in theaters..& does not appear 'cropped' or 'too tight' at all.

Now if you want to believe the uneducated paranoid rumors that people love to spread online as fact,when they are just speculations with no proof at all. Go right ahead, I am not wasting my breath on this anymore & am moving on. Lets hope you do the same:)