I don't really see the problem.
In fairness it was the same with many widescreen video releases, at least newer TVs have more resolution to show the central data from DVD and HD sources.
Very few movies have conventionally been shot in 16:9.
Being physical devices TVs are a certain dimension and 16:9 was always a bit of a compromise. It may be becoming broadcast standard aspect ratio but is not universal elsewhere.
Many older programmes just get distorted at broadcast to fit 16:9 now rather than being shown in the original 4:3 - they are often vertically squashed rather than cropped and look odd.
For many things it depends on the source material.
Pan and scan cropped movies (to 4:3 or 16:9) can work well, but it is dependent on the subject matter.
For epic/big budget films, particularly those of yesteryear, I'd far rather see the whole film letterboxed than cropped, anyhting else diminishes the scale.
Being able to watch a film in it's native aspect ratio is one reason I still buy DVDs from time to time, as
although I could record the film from satellite/terrestrial the broadcast movies is often in pan and scan format.
I recall when the BBC used to frequently show letterboxed movies around Christmas/Easter, but this rarely happens now - thankfully we don't always automatically get the same movies year in year out now 😉
For newer movies many of them are garbage anyway and whatever the aspect ratio they'd still be unentertaining. That's me showing my age again. I used to love special effects/CGI but it gets harder to suspend your disbelief as you get older I think - mainly beacuse it just gets overdone/overused, even in the LOTR films to some extent.
AC
I lose track of these extra wide AR's and all the
different ones there are (they even have names for
'em all), I get annoyed by them, it's like looking
through venetian blinds and sometimes it's like
looking through them when they're closed. Seriously
though, am I just showing my age or do these
resolutions actually enhance viewing for some people.