I’ve always liked this aspect, it uses
up all of the available cinema screen space, unlike other movies. I feel that if you have that size of
“canvas”, shouldn’t you really “paint” it all.
Here’s a page if you don’t know what
the hell 2:35:1 is.
I don’t know, but this does
remind me:
I LOVED it when Finding Nemo’s Full Screen was NOT a chopped-up version of the widescreen!!
They actually added new footage on the top and bottom where the black bars would have been!! Makes me incredibly
sad that the Incredibles was sold with the two formats separate . . . I never knew if they continued that
“additional footage”!
I believe The Incredibles “Full Screen Edition” was a “pan and scan” of the original film,
but with a Pixar touch.
Check out the A Bug’s Life Collector’s edition DVD and there’s a short
featurette about how they repositioned some of the characters who were too far apart from each other on screen so
that you could see them all on the full screen version. Some of the background may be chopped off, but the
characters are all still there!
Why not have 2:35:1 TV’s/
LOL.
I can’t stand foolscreen, so I’ve
not seen much of The Incredibles in that format, only the part at the start that was done in 1.33:1 anyway, so I
couldn’t tell. But I think that it’s the usual Pan & Scan version, since the back of the foolscreen
packaging doesn’t give the usual “special reframed full screen” disclaimer.
Just to answer
your question about when did Pixar switch to 2.35:1, it started with The Incredibles then Cars was rendered in
the same ratio and now Ratatouille will probably be rendered in the same ratio. I personally prefer a wider
screen, and so does the film’s directors, I even remember seeing an ad in some home theatre magazine where Brad
Bird mentioned that he prefers the wider screen of cinemascope, and I have to agree with him. Wider is
better.
There is some downsides. The human
eye can take in much more with 4:3 than 2:35:1. but then it adds to the replay factor.