The fact is that these days using film in itself is rather the exception than the norm.
The case may be that in the wedding photography sector the work produced in film is percentually* higher than in general photography. Maybe film is used in 3% of general photography and 5% of wedding photography.
I read somewhere an article written by a wedding photographer who had switched back to film. His main reason was that the post-processing work in a digital wedding shot can be a long task and it takes away a lot of time. This wedding photographer started again to make the work in colour negative, bring it to a pro lab, have the work back well printed, and live happily. His reasoning was that the film and lab cost was very convenient if compared to the labour saved.
This probably boils down to the fact that if the wedding is shot on film the client does expect some tenths of beautiful prints and not some hundreds of post-processed photographs delivered on a CD.
You mileage may vary. I am not a wedding photographer. Last wedding I remember was in December 2003 and there were a photographer, an assistant, a couple Hasselblads (series V) many film backs and at least a couple of torch flash involved. But that was 2003.
* How do you bloody say "percentually" in English without having the spell checker scream?