Is it a good rule of thumb to assume that seeing a movie in widescreen format is always better than fullscreen? I've spent the last half hour reading about the advantages of the widescreen format and how it preserves the original image and it's the way the director intended the movie to be viewed. I saw some examples on widescreen proponents webpages of how much of the image you loose by "panning and scanning", especially when the original aspect ratio is 2.35:1. If one were to watch a 2.35:1 movie such as Scarface in fullscreen and then watch the widescreen version at the same time or immediately afterwards, could you tell the difference? Would it be a much better movie watching experience in widescreen and make you appreciate or understand the movie more? Is there a big difference seeing a 1.85:1 aspect ratio movie such as the Godfather in fullscreen vs widescreen? After seeing sample images of how things get cut off with "pan and scan" it makes you want to repurchase all 2.35:1 aspect ratio movies in their proper widscreen format and think about doing the same with 1.85:1 ones. What do you all think for a casual/average movie watcher with a 36" television