All The Right Moves - censored

[jah13]

Was happy to pick this up for only $7.99 on Amazon, but quite disappointed to see that the framing in Lea Thompson's nude scene has been altered so that the full frontal nudity (and full dorsal, for that matter) that was visible on the VHS and DVD versions of this film is now zoomed and / or matted out of the frame. I flipped between my DVD and Blu-ray copies of the film and, to my eyes, this was the only this scene that was altered so drastically, making it clear that someone didn't want us to see Lea's below the waist nudity even though it's been visible in every other version of the film.

[Morsoth]

I hate censorships...

I cannot understand why they need to choose for us what we should see, hear, etc.

Maybe a note about that can be added on the review...

[DetroitSportsFan]

What? So now we have to deal with censorship because actresses don't like nude scenes they did decades ago?

Are there comparison screencaps anywhere?

[The Duke]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

What? So now we have to deal with censorship because actresses don't like nude scenes they did decades ago?

Are there comparison screencaps anywhere?

Censorship is one thing - when you buy a R or PG rated BD/DVD vs. a unrated version that has a different run time listed you know before buying that the film has been edited. But these "ninja edits" that remove just a few seconds of material are not disclosed and you have no idea the original film you remember has been altered until after you buy it.

Varsity Blues BD is the same way. I remember on the DVD because when we were younger my sister would always make me pause for her to enjoy - there's a few seconds of rear nudity of Paul Walker when he's banging a girl, and of Scott Caan when he gets out of car and he's naked. Now that they've gone on to be bigger stars those scenes no longer exist on the BD, yet no change in the rating or runtime from the DVD to disclose it.

[spanky87]

Terrible news. I was just going to pick this up, and now I'm considering picking up the dvd. I think that shot is a deal breaker.

[Torgon]

Originally Posted by jah13

Was happy to pick this up for only $7.99 on Amazon, but quite disappointed to see that the framing in Lea Thompson's nude scene has been altered so that the full frontal nudity (and full dorsal, for that matter) that was visible on the VHS and DVD versions of this film is now zoomed and / or matted out of the frame. I flipped between my DVD and Blu-ray copies of the film and, to my eyes, this was the only this scene that was altered so drastically, making it clear that someone didn't want us to see Lea's below the waist nudity even though it's been visible in every other version of the film.

It's George Lucas' vision on how it was meant to be, but didn't have the technology back then to express his vision. It wasn't until now that he was able to edit it to the way he wanted it to be back then. The old version doesn't exisist anymore.

[Show spoiler]

[Arkadin]

pathetic.

[spanky87]

Maybe Tom Cruise had this scene re-edited? Isn't it the "pause it just right and you can see his penis" scene?

[DaleDark]

I know its a cliche that's been beaten into the ground having been used, and missused (I'm guilty of it myself), but there really is no other way to discribe this sorta thing...

EPIC FAIL!!!!!

[jah13]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Maybe Tom Cruise had this scene re-edited? Isn't it the "pause it just right and you can see his penis" scene?

Believe it or not, Tommy's little head is still there on the Blu-ray. It's Lea who's been chopped.

[Lemmy Lugosi]

I've sold my Star Wars blu's and kept my old 2-disc DVD sets just to have the original (& non-anamorphic, dammit George!) versions.

I've sold my Dumb & Dumber blu and picked up the DVD used for $2.

I can't recall others, but I know there've been times when I took a $ loss on a blu-ray purchase due to my personal dissatisfaction with some dumb-ass's idea of a "different" or "better" or "fixed" cut.

Don't get me wrong, I loooves me some extended editions/director's cuts/etc., but there are some things being done in the industry that are, quite simply, well beyond the realm of common sense.

[Maggot]

Lack of integrity rears it's ugly head once again.

[HD Goofnut]

I wonder if this was a studio call or a Lea Thompson call.

[KrugStillo]

Are we sure this isn't just a widescreen vs. full screen scenario. In a lot of movies from the 80's we are just used to old full screen transfers where you saw things in the frame that technically you weren't supposed to see. I'll have to check this out since I have the BD but I don't have the DVD anymore for comparison. If it is legitimately changed than that's stupid but I have a feeling that it's just the way it looked in theaters.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by KrugStillo

Are we sure this isn't just a widescreen vs. full screen scenario.

They chopped out Joan Severance in Hear No Evil, See No Evil as well. I never understood that as why would an actress be nude if it was meant to be out of frame?

Unless it was in Gene Wilder's contract....

[jah13]

Originally Posted by KrugStillo

Are we sure this isn't just a widescreen vs. full screen scenario. In a lot of movies from the 80's we are just used to old full screen transfers where you saw things in the frame that technically you weren't supposed to see. I'll have to check this out since I have the BD but I don't have the DVD anymore for comparison. If it is legitimately changed than that's stupid but I have a feeling that it's just the way it looked in theaters.

I have compared the widescreen DVD, which I own, to the Blu-ray, and the nudity (pubic region and rear end ) is most definitely visible on the DVD and not on the Blu-ray. As I've also already mentioned, the framing of the rest of the film appears to be identical between DVD and Blu-ray. I have seen this film many times on cable, VHS, and DVD, but not on 35mm so I could not say with certainty that the full-frontal nudity was visible in that format, but I would guess that it was.

[SpartanIre]

Originally Posted by jah13

Was happy to pick this up for only $7.99 on Amazon, but quite disappointed to see that the framing in Lea Thompson's nude scene has been altered so that the full frontal nudity (and full dorsal, for that matter) that was visible on the VHS and DVD versions of this film is now zoomed and / or matted out of the frame. I flipped between my DVD and Blu-ray copies of the film and, to my eyes, this was the only this scene that was altered so drastically, making it clear that someone didn't want us to see Lea's below the waist nudity even though it's been visible in every other version of the film.

Too bad - No purchase here... I absolutely hate it when the powers that be decide to change things!

[retablo]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Terrible news. I was just going to pick this up, and now I'm considering picking up the dvd. I think that shot is a deal breaker.

LOL, I hare censorship as much as anyone, but one "shot" doesn't make or break a film. The storyline and characters weren't altered. If your main objective is to perv out on a naked actress, then I'd question my love for the story and film as a whole.

[KrugStillo]

Originally Posted by jah13

I have compared the widescreen DVD, which I own, to the Blu-ray, and the nudity (pubic region and rear end ) is most definitely visible on the DVD and not on the Blu-ray. As I've also already mentioned, the framing of the rest of the film appears to be identical between DVD and Blu-ray. I have seen this film many times on cable, VHS, and DVD, but not on 35mm so I could not say with certainty that the full-frontal nudity was visible in that format, but I would guess that it was.

That's pretty crappy then. However I really didn't think that Lea Thompson had that kind of clout. It's weird cause otherwise the shots surrounding it are framed normally. I wonder if this was something that went unnoticed and was on a specific transfer of the film. They make mistakes with older films all the time. I wish we had more info on this. Censorship sucks! Especially when it prevents me from peeping at hot celebrities.

[ucfmatt]

Originally Posted by retablo

LOL, I hare censorship as much as anyone, but one "shot" doesn't make or break a film. The storyline and characters weren't altered. If your main objective is to perv out on a naked actress, then I'd question my love for the story and film as a whole.

I don't disagree with this but I think this is more about the principle more than anything else. I think a lot of members have a hard line stance about this type of thing since it truly is a slippery slope.