Man, I can't believe I'd been missing this thread for so long! Honestly, the title didn't really interest me, but then I noticed that it was suddenly getting a lot of traffic, so I decided to check it out! Lo and behold, a fun film discussion!
I doubt I have anything new to add at the moment, so I guess I'll just lay my own opinions on the line. For me, film preservation is a no-brainer. Yes, keep the grain! No, don't colorize! No, don't try to force something made decades ago to fit current, popular aesthetics. Don't alter aspect ratios to fit the sizes of TVs, whether that ratio is the 4:3 of SD TVs or the 16:9 of new TVs. It's all ridiculous and is going to continually be a bone of contention between people who know better and the "average consumer." And, for some reason, the average consumer is never going to be convinced to be educated.
As for the succession of technology, I consider that much more of a gray area. I've only ever done digital editing. I'd love the chance to try out editing on actual film. However, part of me wonders, like lordjedi, if the trade-off does allow for comparable results with much less fuss. It seems, especially with this digital shift in medium, that there is always some sort of trade-off, and it usually seems to be quality for ease. Some people see it as being worth it. Others don't. I'm on the fence. However, it seems that most people here agree that, ultimately, technology will win out, for better or for worse. If that is the case, and digital is ever able to provide a comparable image, I suppose it will have to come down to aesthetics, where digital provides a certain-looking image while film provides another style.
I'm curious, though. Does anybody here think that digital will ever be able to replicate the look of film (not just match resolution) that not even videophiles will be able to tell the difference? If that day comes, then I suppose that would truly be the death of film.