Sorry, Lar, just saw this, but wrong again.
On aspect ratio, I rarely change it. Most often on US movies from the 50's or so, or earlier, and more often on foreign films 80's/90's or earlier, Russian, Polish, where directors were working with lousy equipment. Sometimes the subtitles are poor. Sometimes they can be disabled, and replaced with good ones, which you have to download. One time, I couldn't disable bad ones, but they were so bad, I just put good ones on as well, and the good ones alternated between the bad ones, but as they were different font sizes, it was doable. Helps concentration. Sometimes subtitles are as much as 15 seconds late, so you have to synchronize. On sizing, I usually just go to full screen, which keeps ratio.
On the Hollywood thing, not sure what you're saying? On Hollywood, too much reliance on special effects. Plus, too many, what I'd call "message movies". I won't see certain actors, like George Clooney, as he has editorial control. I did see him in that movie about the Hawaiin property, "The Descendants". Hated it. So predictable, as he's always trying to give a message. Like he'd ever give up the property for development? But super liberal Alec Baldwin is one of my favorite actors. In films, at least, he leaves his politics at home, and is much more interested in delivering a convincing performance. Glengarry Glenross, Juror, were spellbinding performances. Clooney has none of that. I like movies about the human condition, bravery, fear, greed, redemption, good vs. evil(but no or limited exploding stuff). In foreign films, short of funding, much more personal movies, little reliance on special effects, and more on character development and dialogue. Special effects bore me. Sure, I loved Star Wars and Indiana Jones, but it wasn't the special effects which made them great, but the story, and in the latter, Harrison Ford was fantastic(actually, in the former he was okay too). As I just posted, I liked Blue Jasmine. It was by no means a fun film, but I think an important one, really about the disintegration of a woman. Captured on film like that, Woody Allen(and Cate Blanchett) get high marks. IMO, this is not easy to do. Computer graphics? James Cameron hires computer geeks to make Avatar. That's great filmmaking? Not for me. There's another scene in the Blue Jasmine, in an outdoor cafe/bar, where I found the dialogue fantastic, two sisters, a boyfriend and friend, where Allen can just make an uncomfortable situation humorous. A real talent. I've grown to dislike Allen's comedies, but "Match Point", "Crimes and Misdemeanors" and this one, just great.
I think the problem with me on Hollywood is that the budgets have to be huge to get huge audiences(mostly teens) that good stories and acting don't sell. No kid will see Blue Jasmine. Stephen Spielberg stated that he almost couldn't get Lincoln made and distributed, and he lauds Netflix for their TV movies/episodes. Hollywood needs blockbusters to pay everyone; foreign films don't have this pressure. "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo", the Swedish one, cost $10 million. That's an indy film in the US. No one, other than people like Francis Ford Coppola types(and Woody Allen types), who finances his own films with his wine company proceeds(Coppola says he can put $10 million into each film) can do this here, and he does interesting stuff. I liked one of his last films, Tetro. He's making "In a World" out soon, and I'll see that. BTW, both Spielberg and George Lucas think there's going to be a studio failure due to a dud, like White House Down, and some of the other big budget duds which happen with more frequency recently.