Here is the thing, Cinematic is defined as "having qualities characteristic of motion pictures." Now movies are now made in widescreen. There for it is not cinematic to be 16:9. Not to say that 16:9 makes your film "uncinematic" but it is more cinematic to be in widescreen.

Odysee ~ YouTube ~ Website ~ Twitter

2.35:1 is peanuts, you should try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-6VM3zhuwQ

Well, I agree that the main thing is what's actually viewed on the screen is more important for being cinematic. However, In comparison of a shot with wide and regular, the wide DOES look more cinematic than the other. But, when doing wide, you should probably shoot the shot slightly differently than if it where not wide, like you might set the camera back further if you're trying to shoot something tall so it'll not be cut off at the top. But personally, I think it's better. All my movies have been shot in regular, but I found a wide setting on my camera and I'm filming my current movie in wide. I find it looks much nicer and more professional looking. It also is a bit useful for this movie because most of it takes place in a bank, and I could only make it's walls so tall, but the wide helps make it so I don't have to angle my camera down as much. And the wide makes my huge detailed bank look much more expansive and impressive.

I would be interested in seeing the medical evidence that backs up that fact there.

I'm siding with OldScratch on this one actually. I don't think just because we have wide vision it necessarily has to be in 16:9. In fact, I just made a quick google search and I came up with this at the very top of the search results. Looking at other articles in my search, most all of them came up with very similar results.

Heh. I never payed attention to the whole darn thing.
EDIT: On a completely unrelated note, I think this is my 400th post on this site.

I thought we were discussing super widescreen instead of 4:3 vs 16:9?

If it's now all about 16:9, then the issue's clear for me. 16:9 looks much, I repeat: much nicer than 4:3. The difference is striking, really. But what I feel is not that necessary is super widescreen, i.e. an aspect ratio of 2.35:1. As I stated earlier, you may argue about it in an action film but since the topic is actually Eddie's comedy film, 2.35:1 isn't an option at all IMO.