You, like most of the media, are much too SLR oriented. My wife and I HAVE traded all of our Canon film gear in for DSLR's (except for my EOS 3). We have even traded in our early digital for later version (top end, we have a 20D, 5D, 5DMkII, 1DSMkII). However, I still prefer to use my Mamiya 645AF with film back. I can't justify the $40k cost for a high end film back. I also use a Toyo 45AX for my money landscape work.
I've heard all of the film vs digital arguments. Mostly crap made by camera makers and sycophants. The weakest point of any camera is the lens. The optics limited circle of confusion of the lens is larger than the film resolution and much larger than all but the high end DSLR's and 645 medium format cameras.
The problem with film was never the film but the processing. I've compared Velvia 50 slides to the 5DMkII and found the Velvia 50 had a slightly better resolution when viewed under direct magnification. All labs just didn't take the time to print carefully enough.
Digital does beat film in a number of areas such as workflow and range. And it is possible to superimpose multiple exposure digital images or photo stitch. The photo stitch does allow for higher resolution images but it is not the same as a single image.