My point is that I think the type of widescreen like [----] looks more 'epic' than the type like [---]. I may just be crazy, but if I ever became a film director/producer I'd never, ever shoot a film in anything less than 2.35:1
When I call it "psuedo-widescreen" or "half-assed widescreen"

I'm merely commentating; I know it's 'widescreen' in that it's wider than 1.33:1, but it just seems pointless to use it when 2.35:1 offers so many more artistic opportunities.