Joe, it has nothing to do with intelligence and I'm not sure why you think a preference for "films to be represented as complete as possible and with their full image, as intended by the original creators, intact" (as quoted in this forum's mission statement) is some kind of class warfare attack. I happen to agree with the above quoted statement, whereas at one time I wouldn't have thought twice about it. So naturally I feel its simply a matter of being informed. I think its a good question to ask; why are the studios themselves the biggest obstacles to their properties being seen as they were meant to? As Ray H posits, what percentage of the market are they losing if they only release a film in proper aspect ratio? Maybe they are actually creating a market that doesn't really exist, like I believe they do with colorized editions. What cost is it really to a studio to go OAR exclusive as opposed to significantly compromising a piece of work (or dare I risk calling it, art) over and over? As for why I care, when there are both versions available, it goes back to the HTF mission statement. If I agree with the statement, which I do, then I would obviously be against anything that is incompatible with it, such as pan and scan DVDs. Simple as that. I'm not tangibly hurt by their existence, its more the principle. New fullscreen releases continue to perpetuate the myth of getting more picture and distance us from having the "films be represented as complete as possible...". The bottom line is the consumer has already noted, with overwhelming authority, its preference for improved quality in the home viewing presentation (DVD>VHS). Doesn't it stand to follow that the same consumers, with knowledge in hand, would prefer OAR? The size of the screen is changing, widescreen editions already outsell their fullscreen brothers, so the OP stands. Why?