Terminator 3 DVD -Interesting Observation (1 Viewer)

[Tom_Bechet]

Now I don`t care too much about haircovered breasts, but I am worried about that they may have misframed the whole film. I will post some screenshots from my R3 NTSC disc (which is from columbia (as all international discs) but is there same as the R1.
But since Columbia and Warner have then the same master I would have thought that it wasn`t just a mistake on warners part but actually intended, by whoever

 

[Chad A Wright]

All this trouble just because we didn't get to see hair covered boobies.



I honestly don't have a problem with open matte. So what if the people who buy the full screen version get to see more? Whatever they are seeing is not what the director intended. That is the entire point of the pro-oar stance. It's not really about seeing more, or even widescreen. It's about the directors wishes. As long as they release an oar version of these films, they can show extra boobies to the full screen crowd if they want.

As has been said, framing on trailers is far from a good indication of what the theatrical framing should be. Very often there are 1.85:1 trailers for scope films.

And by the way, there is nothing wrong with guys like me having a hot wife.

 

[Tom_Bechet]

And by the way, there is nothing wrong with guys like me having a hot wife.

I have a hot girlfriend that`s why I said I`m not too bothered. But if the theatrical presentation was indeed different one as to wonder which version (cinema or DVD) is the one intended by the director.

 

[Jeff Adams]

there is a thread over in dvdtalk that has specific examples of "More nudity in fullscreen movie list".

Tony,
Can you give me what page it is on and what the title of the thread is? I can't find it.

 

[TonyD]

jeff it's in the mature section of the forum at dvdtalk. thats why i didnt post a direct link. nudity in there.

also i'm pretty sure this thread is basically tongue in cheek, with all the full screen getting more then us widescreen folks stuff.

 

[David Galindo]

I have a hot girlfriend that`s why I said I`m not too bothered.

All I have is a hot sandwich. :frowning: But a really, really good hot sandwich. Mmmmm...

 

[Scott*E]

there is an entire section about how shots are composed on the t-2 ultimate ed dvd and the box set laser disc. and one way they compare is a sort of pic in pic with the red and blue(or yellow, i don't remember) borders showing you what version is what of a scene from t-2.
it was very informative and interesting.

Is this what you're talking about?



http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml

 

[WillG]

So what if the people who buy the full screen version get to see more? Whatever they are seeing is not what the director intended.

Just to throw something out here, who's to say what the director really intended? You don't often see a ton of directors taking an official stance on prefered AR concering their Flat or Super35 films (Can't argue with films that are shot Anamorphic, save for a few specific examples) How do we know that the director isn't thinking that "Well, this will only play in theaters for a month and a half, and will be on home video for the rest of it's life? I'll let it be scope for that month and a half, but I want a different A.R. for video" We assume that most directors shoot for a theatrical release while protecting for a MAR home video release, but what if for some, it's the other way around? We've already seen at least one recent example of this (The Recruit) "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" appears to be sharing the same fate. I wish more directors would take a stance on what their true vision really is.

 

[Robert Floto]

As I asked before...where are these T3 shots from? The widescreen "box" outlined images are obviously not from actual shots in the film (on either the full screen or widescreen discs). I just want to see a frame from the actual movie on the widescreen DVD, and then that same frame from the actual full screen movie version...

Can anyone do this so that we can know for sure what the deal is?

 

[Tom_Bechet]

here you go:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tom.bec...res/T3/T3a.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tom.bec...res/T3/T3b.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tom.bec...res/T3/T3c.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tom.bec...res/T3/T3d.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tom.bec...res/T3/T3e.jpg

These shots are from the Columbia R3 NTSC but that one will be the same as the warner R1

PS they are a bis smaller than usual for 2 reasons:

1) save space
2)I reframed the video size when checking exactly which shot to capture

 

[Grant H]

I really do think we're seeing a case of the aforementioned "zoomboxing".

I didn't do comparisons to trailers; I remember what I saw in theaters for at least the couple shots I mentioned before. In addition, there definitely was more than one booty shot of Lokken. That seemed really odd when I watched it at home and there was only one.

Whether this was intentional or not, I don't know. Would they really intentionally zoom in so much just so the image wouldn't look soft or did someone just fall asleep a la Back to The Future 2 and 3? Or did some DVD tech decide to be his own director or cinematographer instead of holding true to the director's version?

Either way, we're not getting the theatrical versions which sucks. If they want to zoom in do a separate "Enhanced for small TV's" version.

And I know I'm not the only guy here who got suckered into seeing this movie with the promise of seeing a hot naked Terminatrix. You can bet the studio knew that would draw in the young guys too. To remove much of the little nudity on DVD? Strange.

I want the theatrical version on DVD. Depending on how many shots are zoomed, the Full-Screen may actually be closer. (but would suck on my 16:9 tv)

If the film is zoomboxed, we can't let the studio get away with it. Widescreen will become totally worthless if they all start zooming in the image just to make it bigger and clearer. So much information lost. Aargh; a world where widescreen is worse than P & S. We can't let it happen!

p.s. I wonder what Don Burgess would think of that one screen cap with his name on it if that's not at all the way he framed the shot.

 

[Dennis]

Now that we have the screenshots for the widescreen version, can someone post the full screen ones? Please.

 

[Porfirio]

I'm a novice at this, so you get what you paid for
Just kidding!

 

[Lyle_JP]

Well, there it is on the second page, folks:

http://daredvl_1.tripod.com/Comparison/Untitled-2.htm

Proof Positive of ZOOMBOXING! Major cropping off of the left an right sides of the image in the widescreen, which is not normal for an image derived from Super35!

[RANT]This is not what we saw in the theaters, kids.[/RANT]

-Lyle J.P.

Newer Update: The frames look pretty cloesly matched, and the zooming is still evident here.

 

[Mark Bendiksen]

Hmmm...if this is indeed true then obviously this is not cool. In fact, this is the first time I've ever heard of something like this being done. My first question is how often has this been done in the past with Super35 transfers and I didn't realize it? My second question is did they only zoom in the nude shots or is it prevalent throughout the entire movie?

 

[Matthew Marino]

The second pic appears to be a slightly different frame of the film, but still zoomed in.

 

[David Illingworth II]

It's too bad we hadn't discovered this before the chat with JM Kenney since he's the producer of the disc. That would have been a great point to bring up to him. Perhaps Ron could contact him and ask him to clear this up.
It does seem like the widescreen shots are radically zoomed in. I saw the film several times in theaters, but I can't honestly remember if the shots were that zoomed in or not. Very strange.

 

[Tommy G]

This is an incredibly informative thread. to you guys. to studios who participate in this practice. I will definitely not be picking this up now.

 

[Grant H]

Maybe we got a widescreen version of a version specially created for broadcast television.

I even noted when I zoomed in with the wide shot of her approaching the Lexus that though no hair seemed to be covering her at that point, she seemed to have no nipples; like they were painted out.

 

[Vincent_P]

Uhm, that's NOT the same frame ( http://daredvl_1.tripod.com/Comparison/Untitled-2.htm ), and thus an invalid screen-grab comparison since the Terminatrix is moving closer to the camera in that shot (if you had chosen two slightly different frames in a static shot with no movement or focus-pulls, I'd buy it, but not when the character is moving closer to the camera). Look at the lights behind and to the left of the Terminatrix's head- in the widescreen shot, the lights are different than they are in the full-frame shot. My guess is there was a camera move there that got closer to her or panned slightly (or she just walked closer to the lens and they pulled focus- notice that the lights in the "widescreen" shot are more out-of-focus than they are in the "full-frame" one, again indicating that the widescreen frame-grab is from later on in the shot), and whoever did the screen caps captured the full-frame image at a different point in the shot than whoever captured the widescreen one. The only TRUE comparison to see if anything is cropped would be if somebody captured the EXACT SAME FRAME from both versions- say, the very first frame of that shot? Because it's obvious that these are NOT the exact same frames and she's moving closer to the camera during that shot.

Vincent