Well, not only that, but I often go over to friends' houses to watch movies. Unless I convince them to let me bring the movie, I'm usually stuck watching a butchered fullscreen version. More often than not, I'll have to revisit the title shortly thereafter, in widescreen, to pick up on anything that I may have missed.

Only a fraction of this "crusade" has to do with what other people buy. In my opinion, the more important issue at hand is the fact that the work of numerous directors is chopped up and disrespected. Like Pollack said on this featurette; "I filmed in widescreen, not in fullscreen. (Widescreen) is what I wanted you to see. It's what I had in mind when I set up each and every one of my shots. Not (fullscreen)."

-JP

I watched the movie last week and checked out that featurrette. Sydney Pollack did a wonderful job explaining (visually) how much of the movie you lose, and all the "information" (story, characters and plot) that gets lost by P&S. He was empassioned about it which I really liked. He also pointed out knowing that his movie would eventually get panned and scanned, he decided to start shooting moveis in 4:3 ratio. When doing so, he purposefully fit everything into the parameters of that shot or aspect ratio. But, now with "The Interpreter", he's gone back to widescreen. I have a whole new appreciation for the guy now. I think this feature is a great reference to have handy should any visitors start spouting off about how they don't want to watch those "black bars" next time I pop in a movie.

Not that I disagree with the rest of your sentiment, but that statement is ludicrously false.