eye balls.
thee end.

I have changed my approach a bit over the last several months. I guess the easiest way to explain it is; I shoot what makes sense for the situation. I still shoot film quite a bit, but have fully recognized that I do certain things better with digital.
I have also come to understand that it is relatively irrelevant to most of my clientele how my imagery is created. What they want from me is quality imagery, and to do that I simply use the best tool for the job. There are hundreds of factors that help me decide which of those tools I am going to use.
When it comes to giving advice on how to create a cohesive collection... I strongly suggest you work on your overall style.
Let your Film shooting influence your Digital shooting...
Let your Digital shooting influence your Film shooting...
I have always tried to make my images look more filmy. And now, I have the person that develops my film (Danny at prophoto irvine) reference a portfolio of my digital work to match color tones and my "look".
Doing this has helped mold my style and change my vision, composure, sense of deliberateness, and usage of light.... in all the ways I have wanted it to.
I understand that when people start shooting film there is a overwhelming desire to say "make my images look like XXXX's" because they see that person succeeding with the usage of film... also the fact that most people are not very aware of how to talk to a lab or what you can ask of them or how they can help you mold your style and "look". But I can tell you from personal experience that you will never get the images you asked to look like XXXX's to fit well with your hybrid collection.
There are an absolute ton of other factors that influence creating a cohesive collection of film and digital images... but I think the above is the best place to start. =)

I use any film I can find and any ISO I can find. I do have preferences though.
SO I suppose the blanket answer to your question would be; yes.

I always upgrade my camera first if there is a point to do so. For instance... Right now I am very happy with my D4 and D3... I almost prefer my D3 more... Point being that I have no desire to get a better camera right now. So I would likely do a computer upgrade.
Now, in your particular situation considering you are canon shooter... I would totally get the MKIII. It is going to be other worldly compared to your MKII. So yeah, hold off on the computer and get the MKIII

I use live view to manually adjust my white balance for every lighting condition. I also adjust tint in camera to get as close as I can to the look I want before the image even hits the computer.

I don't use a dvd. I do online image delivery. My clients are able to download their wedding images directly from the web to their computer.

I use an online proofing system. The client is automatedly sent a release link once the album draft is completed and uploaded.

I use an old hp photosmart premium to print on DVDs... errr make that, when I used to print on DVDs. I do digital delivery now so I don't really do anything with a DVD anymore.
I don't print images at home. I have an incredible pro lab close to my house. I have everything printed their and let the pros handle it.

I use a strap from a company called pac safe. They are thin and strong, wrap around my hand easily and don't have any buckles or clips if I want to get the camera off my body in a hurry. I also really like how once you have a little weight on the strap and the shoulder cushion is positioned on your shoulder the sling tether moves smoothly through the shoulder pad. http://pacsafe.com/carrysafe-100-anti-theft-camera-strap
I also this strap from time to time; http://www.blackrapid.com/products/sport

I have never shot a funeral... and I am not entirely sure I would be the right guy for the job. Much of my work is dependent upon my relationships with my clients and interacting with them... if I was hired to shoot a funeral, I would want to be very elusive and really just stick to photojournalistic mode.

I don't ask any specific questions. Normally I will just make small talk and learn as much about them as I can through general conversation. I don't really try to sell my self... either I connect with the couple, they like my style and want to hire me... or they don't.

I only use flash when I can not make a good picture with out it. I never shoot AWB. Typically, I adjust the WB manually, or just pick a scene setting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3VRhwN_Yt0

Play

Ya, don't let anyone fool you... shooting film is not a cheap thing to do. When I first decided to shoot film for weddings, I definitely ate the costs. I tried to be as smart as I could with it... but to be honest, it was very challenging. You really need to get good at limiting the amount of times you push that shutter button and be much more deliberate with what you are shooting. If anything, shooting fill will greatly improve your understanding of what you want to get from a wedding visually.

Once I had shot a couple weddings with film (eating the costs on my own), I made a
significant jump in pricing to accommodate shooting more film.

Here is the thing... I don't really tell my clients that I shoot film. In fact most of them tell me that they cant tell the difference. SO, its not like I can tell people that I charge more because I shoot film. The reason i could raise my prices wasn't because I decided to shoot film and all of a sudden clients wanted to pay for film... I was able to raise prices because I where I was with my business. I made the decision to invest that extra revenue into film because it made my work-flow easier and I loved the way it made my images look.

I want to add that the longer you shoot film the better you get at budgeting for what you will need at any given event, thus decreasing your costs and retaining some revenue. So, while the upfront investment will be there... you will learn how to keep it controlled.

To be perfectly honest, I am not the biggest fan of B&W film for wedding work. I would prefer to shoot my favorite color stocks and convert to B&W later. When I do bring B&W film with me to a wedding it is a generic 35mm 400 speed that I get off of ebay. I love the grainy look and it over-exposes by a stop well.
When I shoot B&W for portrait sessions I find my self gravitating to Neopan 100. It is super clean and always surprises me with how great the images look.
I don't really have a "dream" set up. I love my Contax 645 and the 80mm f/1.4 and am really happy with that right now... but things always change and I try to keep my style evolving. So who knows, my answer might be totally different in a month or two.

Yeah! I totally have. (I have two!) They are fantastic rigs. A couple words to the wise. 1.Get an AFD II if you can. All of the AFDs are good, but the AFD II is just faster all around and you will be happier with it. 2.I had to have the focusing screen in all of my AFDs replaced by Bill Maxwell and converted to a bright screen. The focusing screen inside of the AFDs are pure crap they are warped everywhere but the center. 3.You should look into getting the 80mm f1.9 it is a beautiful lens and has some similar properties to the Contax 80mm.
Another good advantage to the AFDs is the backs are easy to interchange and they are less money compared to the Contax's. OH! and they also take AAs instead of the confound weird batteries that the Contax does.
I would suggest checking out Mike Ash Smiths work at http://ashimagery.com/blog/
I believe he uses AFDs as his work horses.

That is a really rough question to answer. I tend to connect with a lot of my clients on a personal level so I would say my judgment is a bit impaired when it comes to selecting a favorite.
Its like you just asked me to tell you which one of my children I love more.... ;-)

Without seeing the exact lighting situation for myself it is tough to tell you what I would do. There are so many different factors to consider when dealing with artificial light. Seeing as how you mentioned the colors, I would guess you want to stay away from B&W soooo I would immediately gravitate to Portra 800, rate it at 800 and tell my guys at PPI to brighten it up a bit. If you need something in color that has more latitude, just remember that Portra 400 looks pretty darn good pushed to 1600. With a good lab really paying attention to the scans, your frames will look great. Also, while I rarely use one... a tripod might be your friend in this situation (for longer exposures).

I suppose that is a matter of opinion then. For me, I KNOW that some of those images would never look like they do had I shot them with a digital body. Film is way better at keeping detail in the highlights and shadows than digital is.

I like how slightly de-focused film images look. Film looks awesome out of focus... digital... not so much.