Starting with the Hitchcock stuff:
Rear projection has never bothered me either.
I agree with Peter's list, and Welles Fan's additions. To be honest, I've liked every Hitchcock film I've yet seen, with the possible exception of Topaz , but I liked the final shot of that, showing a newspaper being left on a bench: after all the characters have done, their actions have become yesterday's news. This may be the kind of thing Welles means when he says he's not sure if Hitchcock likes people very much, but that kind of sly humour, poking fun at characters, and his way of showing the flaws in them, is one of the reasons I like Hitchcock's stuff.
There are one or two Hitchcock films that don't get the attention they deserve, IMHO, Rope and The Wrong Man particularly, the latter being very uncharactistic, but interesting.
I think The Birds and Marnie would be seen in a different light if Hitchcock hadn't already been known for his particular brand of thriller: those two seem very like the trademarked "Hitch" style at moments, but they have an unusual, dreamlike quality all their own (particularly Marnie ). Was this intentional? I don't know, maybe I'm justifying their flaws, but they worked for me.
Interesting use of colour in The Birds , loved the ending. Marnie has that interesting, dreamlike atmosphere which occured in a slightly more traditional way in The Birds , and the nastiness and irrationality by turns of the main characters could be thought of as a breaking-through of what Hitchcock had been showing recurrently in his films for as long as he'd been making them: in his universe, everyone is guilty (this again may be what Welles detected).
Overall, one of the things I like most about Hitchcock is the sense of each film being able to reflect on the others. For example, Hitchcock was and is seen as a director whose style relied heavily on the editing: Rope shows that that style could work in the absense of true editing. North By Northwest is all the more interesting when you realise that that trademarked Hitchcock style (light, tongue-in-cheek humour and "incidents") was about to take an extended holiday: that feel wouldn't really return until Family Plot , everything between, with the exception of Topaz , is in one way or another an experiment in tone compared to the traditional Hitch style. Or am I reading too much planning into a series of commercial miscalculations? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.
Now, onto Ford...
Re: Ford, I can see that he might not appeal to some people, I don't like every Ford film I've seen. The one I can immediately remember not having liked is They Were Expendable . Too sentimental about unsympathetic characters (or rather, about characters I found unsympathetic), too padded. I'm sure it may be someone's favorite Ford though.
But I wasn't aware John Ford had been forgotten, mind you. Who hasn't heard of him? If we're talking about forgotten filmmakers, or filmmakers in danger of being forgotten, I would nominate Howard Hawks. The difficulty is perhaps Hawks' own down-to-earthness.