If I used "blanket statements" like yours, I could safely say that in my case
a scope screen would limit every aspect ratio while scope is exactly the same. I choose to not use absolute statements like:
Also a significant amount of streaming content is 2.0:1 or wider and will have more visual impact on a wider screen.
Nope... much larger on my 16:9. Figuring that a scope setup 132" in width would limit me to 56.19" of height.
Oh, right...sit closer....so smaller is more immersive...
A narrow 1.78:1 screen will always compromise a wider AR when seating is static.
Nope...not in my case 2:1, 2.2:1 are larger and scope is exactly the same. Also, I would think most people pick a seating distance that works for them before making the seating distance "static" so a little prior planning goes a long way to avoiding this. "Sit closer" comes to mind.
I get it. Many like the look of scope. Many don't want to have just a "TV". Black bars bother some. For some, CIH is the only way to go...seating/angles/etc. Some want to see content the way the director intended (why they every watch it at home and not in the cinema???). For some, more width is available and scope provides so much "more". For some it is the sit "comfortably" closer to scope for more immersion argument (how did they ever get away from TV when they could've just sat closer for more immersion???). Along with the other various reasons.
Lets look at "common sense" and "real" math of why 16:9 works best in my room
I have exactly
132" of width to work with and enough height to support a 151.5" 16:9 screen. Using the same 132" and going with a scope screen would yield the same 143.5" of scope I get with a 16:9. Following??? So using the same logic, 2:1 is actually 147.625" on my 16:9 screen vs the much smaller 125.625" I would get on a scope screen. Using common sense it is easy to see in my case that a scope screen provides a better 2:1 experience "size-wise" and in the last week alone we have binge watched the new seasons of "The Tick" on Amazon and "Santa Clarita Diet" on Netflix.
How can I say a scope screen...in my case...would limit the other aspect ratios??? Simple math:
So on to the statement on fixed/static seating...I don't have fixed seating. I have five recliners and a couch to the side. If I want more immersion that 151.5" of 16:9, or 143.5" of 2.35:1, or 123.79" of 4:3, or 147.5" of 2:1, I can get it.
In summary, a 2.35:1 screen would be too limiting as far as my personal preference
There are plenty of reasons to pick between a 16:9 or 2.35:1 screen:
personal preference, equipment, angles, seating distance/rows, width/height available, being part of the CIH AV club and content watched.
As to personal preference, I prefer all my aspect ratios as large as possible given my current home.
As to equipment, angles, seating distance/rows and width/height available, it works for us and I don't leave any unused inches on the wall. Also, we can move the recliners for more.
As to content watched, we watch everything secure in the knowledge every aspect ratio is a large as possible in our home on a 16:9 screen and much of our content is 2:1, 16:9 and 4:3. (See displaywars math...16:9 spanks 2.35:1 in my case.)
Finally, here are the best reasons for my/us picking 16:9:
It fits our native 16:9 projector.
It works for our seating distance...fits our eyes...no eyestrain even with binge watching.
It allows us to use every inch available for the largest possible experience in my room regardless of the aspect ratio.
Variable aspect ratio movies/TV look "great" on it and the projector does all the work.
The new IMAX enhancement... more expanded content may be coming.
It is simple and spanks what a small 143.5" scope screen would offer in my home.
It "wows" family and friends...normal people...that buy the largest possible TV instead of just sitting closer.
A 143.5" scope screen would just look small to us now for 90% of the content watched.
It gives us the largest possible "TV" in my home.
We often prefer a good TV/Netflix/Amazon/HBO/premium channel series to commercial scope movies.
We like our 50% of "flat" commercial movies to be as impressive (large as possible) as "scope" releases come movie time.