Walmart DVD's
12-15-01 | 07:10 AM
#26
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by letterbox
Supposedly that is the case with the MPAA. If the movie on tape or disc (or a theatrical re-release) is different than what the MPAA reviewed for its original theatrical rating then it is unrated unless it is resubmitted for a new rating in its new form.
Supposedly that is the case with the MPAA. If the movie on tape or disc (or a theatrical re-release) is different than what the MPAA reviewed for its original theatrical rating then it is unrated unless it is resubmitted for a new rating in its new form.
I ask because when a film is put on video and "formatted to fit this screen," and the mattes are removed from either a 1.85:1 movie or a Super-35, things that weren't visible in the theatrical print can be seen. Mainly, I'm wondering about nudity. It's possible that a simple topless scene in a theatrical showing could become a full-frontal scene when the mattes are taken away. Which could be the difference between a PG-13 and an R. Or a simple flash or implication of (female) toplessness could become an extended scene of toplessness.
Is this taken into account at all during the rating process?
12-15-01 | 08:51 PM
#27
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally posted by LarryWR400
HAnd should I be weary about buying at Walmart?
HAnd should I be weary about buying at Walmart?
12-16-01 | 03:55 AM
#28
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Josh-da-man
Does this only apply to films that have had extra content added or removed?
I ask because when a film is put on video and "formatted to fit this screen," and the mattes are removed from either a 1.85:1 movie or a Super-35, things that weren't visible in the theatrical print can be seen. Mainly, I'm wondering about nudity. It's possible that a simple topless scene in a theatrical showing could become a full-frontal scene when the mattes are taken away. Which could be the difference between a PG-13 and an R. Or a simple flash or implication of (female) toplessness could become an extended scene of toplessness.
Is this taken into account at all during the rating process?
Does this only apply to films that have had extra content added or removed?
I ask because when a film is put on video and "formatted to fit this screen," and the mattes are removed from either a 1.85:1 movie or a Super-35, things that weren't visible in the theatrical print can be seen. Mainly, I'm wondering about nudity. It's possible that a simple topless scene in a theatrical showing could become a full-frontal scene when the mattes are taken away. Which could be the difference between a PG-13 and an R. Or a simple flash or implication of (female) toplessness could become an extended scene of toplessness.
Is this taken into account at all during the rating process?
As for exposed nudity in full-frame, I've heard of that happening. Only possibly seen it once. "Single White Female," which I've only seen in full-frame, had a full-nude shot that looked like it would have been covered up in a matted version. In other cases, however, the unmatted version reveals the actor or actress is wearing underwear that is supposed to be covered by the matte ("Vacation"). But if they're paying attention when they do the transfer, they can zoom in on such shots so as not to reveal whatever is under the matte.
12-16-01 | 07:58 AM
#29
DVD Talk Limited Edition
The music companies edit cd's so Wal-Mart will carry them. This shows that the RECORD COMPANIES are money hungry and want to make more money by compromising their artists' work
