35mm is dead (again)

[Sony Walkman Prophecies]

Slightly old news, but for those who didn't hear the first time around: http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-12/film-tv/35-mm-film-digital-Hollywood/

Is celluloid worth keeping? Sometimes I think it's become harder to tell the difference between 35mm and digital, but then when I watch something like Breaking Bad (shot on celluloid) I can immediately see the case for it. Smooth tones, compression of the highlights; practically essential for shooting in the harsh light they get close to the border. With a production like Game of Thrones though, I'm less convinced. Subdued lighting, typically grim northern weather; the kind of scenario where you'd definitely want digital to capture all the stuff going on in the shadows.

There's also a similar debate raging (at least on Kermode's Twitterfeed) about the death of film-projectors, but I'm less convinced the playback medium is as important.

[Bored of Canada]

I really feel you're approaching it in exactly the right way with how you phrased it. I think both options have their positives and negatives and I think choosing either film or digital for your film is incredibly important. The look of a movie/television show is incredibly loaded in an audiences visual grammar and each have their own effect. Eg: Saving Private Ryan, 28 Days Later, The Bourne Series, even that (in my opinion) piece of shit, "Trashhumpers".

All of those films benefit from utilising digital/film and increase the effect it has on the audience, even if most people might not outwardly realise "Oh, that was shot on desaturated, slightly exposed 35mm film." and stuff. So I think it's wrong for the either/or mentality that people take, everyone shouldn't just flock back to film, a filmmaker should approach it in a strictly case by case basis to accentuate the effect they're trying to make.

Digitals better for low light situations, but thing is, shooting digital on a major production comes with it's own major drawbacks for Cinematographers. Seeing as how a Director explains their intention to a DP, who must then explain their intentions to a crew of digital technicians who then need to try and help him reach that first intention, and things can (and probably) will get diluted. I mean, it takes a village to make a film but still.
If you're interested in the topic, which sounds like you are, you should definitely give this article a read which goes into far more detail about the positives and negatives of utilising digital in modern productions with current day equipment, and is probably a far more intelligent piece then my wank here:

http://www.fdtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/LeFutur-byMadelynMost-5563.pdf

Film's definitely worth keeping, especially for the work ethic it instills in a cast and crew. Everything is far more scrutinised and will get you a better finished product. That said, if you're shooting a film that requires a lot of improvisation and such, like a Christopher Guest, or you want to extract as much emotion from a scene and like filming all the rehearsals in case of something spontaneous coming out, like Shane Meadows, then digital's key. So really, it comes down to style and intention. People shouldn't go out of their way to shoot on 35mm if there's no point to be shooting on 35mm.

[Sony Walkman Prophecies]

Thanks Bored of Canada, will definitely be reading that!