I've looked everywhere on the internet! Walmart.com, target.com, amazon.com, various independent sites. Even dishneydvd.com! And no where can I find a full screen edition of this movie! Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
shareEww, why would you want full screen? You'll be missing pieces of the film.
shareFull screen is EVIL!!! It defies the filmmakers' rights as artists by altering their original vision just so their film can fill TV screens. Often that means cutting out 25 or 50% of the original frame; granted, there are about just as many films where more of the frame is revealed in the full screen version, but even in those cases, there is still a change from the filmmakers' intended framing, which I still find unacceptable. Fortunately, this putrid format has died off in the realm of home video (due to the rise of widescreen TVs and Blu-ray Disc), so hopefully you won't be finding a Cars 2 full screen edition anywhere (except on TV channels, where full screen still thrives, the bastard).
Winter's a good time to stay in and cuddle / But put me in summer, and I'll be a... happy snowman! - Olaf, Frozen
Fullscreen isn't all bad. While many movies look much better in their original ratios. Some don't. It seems more and more filmmakers are using the 2.35:1 just to give their film a more "epic" look to it. But they don't seem to know how to shoot for it. Either they use too tight of a shot to fill the frame or everything takes place in the middle of the frame and that leaves most of the frame unused. There used to be a youtube video that compared wide and full shots of The Matrix and the full frame shots looked better. There was alot of unused video space in the widescreen shots where nothing was happening. On the flip side of it films like Star Wars and Dances With Wolves look horrible in full screen mode. The visuals and landscapes are lost in the cropping.
To touch up on jjstar's mention of certain films that expose more of the frame in fullscreen, I have the first Cars and it alternates between shots with more and shots with less image than the widescreen version. There was one live action movie I downloaded in 2.35:1 and I watched only a little bit of it but a few days later I saw it was on HBO and they were showing it in 1.78:1. The whole film was more exposed than the original one and in my view the more exposed was better. In the original ratio tops of people's heads were cut off and in the exposed version you could see the top of the head and some space above. Guess I am just not a fan of extra tight widescreen shots.
If certain 2.35:1 films came out in "fullscreen for 16:9 displays" either if they are cropped or more exposed I would probably buy them. But as the others have said, fullscreen for the home video market in any capacity is dead.
I see what you mean in regards to overly-tight and overly-spacious 2.35:1 framing - heck, I even kind of agree with you on that in some cases - and I do know that you personally have a preference for how someone else's work should be shown, but that still should not excuse the drastic altering of a person's work (or, more accurately, a crew of people's work) to serve that personal preference. It is doable to do so, as many years of panning-and-scanning and zooming technology has proven, but it shouldn't be acceptable. As a hypothetical, if I had the ability to hold Ehren Kruger on gunpoint and force him to rewrite chunks of his Transformers screenplays to make them brilliant, I'd gladly enjoy doing so, but I shouldn't have the right to do that since they are Kruger's screenplays and not mine, so he should have the right to do whatever he wants with them. (It would also be a felony for me to do that, but that's beside the point.)
I'm not just arguing for widescreen here, but for "artist's rights." Filmmakers should have the rights to not have their films changed by others to fulfill the preferences of others. Simple as that. The Transformers films are crap, but I do not have the right to change that (nor do I have the talent for that matter ). Only Kruger and Michael Bay have that right.
However, on the subject of Pixar's full screen releases, I'm a lot more forgiving. I neglected to mention this before, but I believe all of Pixar's releases from A Bug's Life (1998) to Cars (2006) had specially-made full screen editions which alter between reframed shots (where the frame is opened up vertically), restaged shots (where elements like characters and objects are moved closer together to make them fit), and good-ol' pan-and-scanned shots. These full screen versions were done by the artists themselves, so I don't have a big issue with that since they should have the right to alter their own films. Even John Lasseter said this about the full screen version of A Bug's Life (can be watched here at 0:20 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7R0ATPvzDA):
...for me, as a filmmaker, I want the audience, no matter whether they're watching it in the movie theater or they're watching it on video, to see the movie...the way we intended it.
Only special directors like Kubrick will have a say on how they frame their movies.
Others will be told to frame their movies according to movie complex projectors.
Directors however can move between screen formats, as Nolan did for Batman.
Movies like Titanic have the open matte format and the studio will re crop for other media format
http://myimpressionz.tk