Re: "Not cinematic enough"
The argument over AR from the detractors point is that Whedon is a TV director, he wanted to use a TV aspect ration. We've been hearing the "it looks like TV" argument from the detractors for some time now.
Of course that was not true and the reason was that it was going to be shot in originally with 3D cameras as the post credit Thor scene was (which was done by Whedon). All of the actors involved and Whedon hated using the 3D cameras because it provides no perspective on where the camera is to the actor (because there are two lenses) and there's no way for the director to know how the shot is being framed without constantly viewing on a monitor (with 3D glasses)
When they made the decision to post convert for budget and time purposes, they wanted to use the best post convert process possible, and that is 1.85:1.
I brought up the IMAX issue because IMAX is a 1.44:1 so it's about like an old standard TV screen. When movies are filmed with IMAX cameras and shown in the theater in 2:40:1, they have to crop the top and bottom of the image. This was done with TDK (I'm not here to start a Nolan TDK argument, I'm stating a fact).
So yes the whole argument is bogus. Yes I prefer the 2.40 AR myself, but there are plenty of great films done in 1.85.
Yes there have been trolls that have been using the "it looks like TV" argument for at least the last 9 months (ever since the bonus trailer with Cap:TFA)
"You have a metal arm? That's awesome dude!"