I would have to say that film vs. digital is that digital has given the masses the chance to really learn photography and I think that really chaps "filmies"
I mean, when I was growing up, I wanted a Canon AE-1P so bad, but the cost of cameras and lenses were out of my leauge, not to mention that one-hour photo shops were almost unheard of. The learning curve was massive. You did not know if you got a good shot (if you shot manual) until you developed your film.
Now comes digital. You can see the image as soon as you take it and can instanly make changes and now anyone can learn how to take a photo (outside of using "auto") and have it be affordable. One example being is if I need to switch my speed of film, I simply change my camera's settings (ISO) and not have to switch out a entire roll of film. Not to mention, on a 16GB card I can store 800 photos!!! Come on... I mean really. Your average person carried only a few rolls and they contained what? 24? 36? shots per roll?

(Let's see... math... 800 divided by 24 {average shots per roll} is 33 rolls!!!) Oh, and I can swap memory cards in like 5 seconds if by chance I run out of room shooting in a morning and they can STILL fit in my front pocket.

With digital, a journalist can take a photo half-way across the world and sent it back to his/her editor in minutes, if not seconds. Do THAT with film.
If you choose to shoot film then so be it, but in MO film is going the way of the 8-track, super 8, beta tape, records, lazer disks... It is simply being replaced by a superior tecnology. Before long, any leftover superiority of 35mm film over digital will be long gone.
D