First of all, as one who works in independent film, why are you so insistent that studio films and big box office movies are the only ones that count, as if indie filmmakers don't exist at all.
I didn't say that at all. I provided a list to the listed 139 films in the box office and the top 200 grossing box office movies of 2007. That is exclusive of independent or studio status, it is absolute. Those are films that have seen at least a limited theatrical distrobution deal. I don't see a lot of films shot for under 100k on high definition or DV there, do you?
Now clearly there is a market for indie DVD's, and some get sold there. If you make a film for $30k and it sells $200k in DVD's thats a nice ROI, and a success. But that is not proof that film is dead, is it? Not when I see a single major independent release that grosses the amount of 100 of these DVDs combined, and it was shot on film and garnered a major distro deal.
Second, on the studio end, I think films like Zodiac, Star Wars, Superman speak for themselves. Several notable filmmakers like Cameron (ironically of "Titanic" fame) and George Lucas have sworn off film entirely. Peter Jackson is considering the Red Camera for his new feature. No less filmmakers than Soderbergh and Fincher are making and releasing films shot digitally. Then there are notable indie films from big names like Scott Frank, who shot The Lookout on the Genesis.
Regarding these, and other films like Grindhouse, Digital is both a practical AND aesthetic advantage, and therefore it fits perfectly. In the case of superhero/comic book type films, they are incredibly CGI heavy. Every scene in Star Wars Episode III (Star I was 35mm) had some sort of massive process, green screen, fx, etc. applied in post, so it would make sense that a film like that would use digital as a way of saving time and money. In each of the examples you bring up, they are cases where the film employs so much digital processing that it makes more sense to begin in a digital medium. Cameron's Avatar is a perfect example.
The Lookout was shot with both 35mm and digital. Again, I'm sure it was mixed footage because the part they needed to do a lot of work to could be shot that way and the rest on 35mm. Also, I wouldn't bring up The Lookout. It lost its ass in the box office.
And none of this was true thirty years ago. Even ten years ago. It's a NEW and growing trend that is unlikely to reverse course.
Thats all true. Nevertheless take a look at the box office, DVD sales or rentals charts, and show me where film is dead because movies that are perfect for digital because they need so much digital processing are being shot digitally or with mixed footage. I don't see it. I also see a lot of people who say they didn't like the look of Superman and Star Wars III, but thats a seperate conversation all together.
Film has the advantage of entrenchment, but that is it.
Have you ever seen what a 4k film set looks like? There are actually MORE people and MORE equipment on a 4k set than a 35 set. The cameras are as big and usually bigger than a 35mm camera. I mean what about film is so entrenching? Here's a shot of Superman Returns with the Genesis:
or if that doesn't work, here's a link:
http://www.studiodaily.com/images/articles/6826_1152651914.jpg
Does that situation look warm and inviting to you? Is this the non-entrenchment you speak of?
Sooner or later practicality wins out. The same was true with digital photography. Six years ago, professional photographers were sure that digital could never surpass film and that digital was for no-budget amateurs. Today, the consumer market is almost entirely digital and the pros are quickly changing over.
What we have here is some confusion, IMO, between consumers, and high-end and low-end work, and it falls right into line with my theory that the assumption is made that because x exists and on paper is a better solution, all will choose it.
For instance, consumers choose digital picture DVD and Satellite because their previous choice, analog VHS, sucked PQ wise. The format they had before was actually about the same price, but the PQ was greatly superior to the original Home Video format. That is not so with 35mm vs. 4k.
Between high end and low end work is a different animal. When VHS came out did high-end professionals and TV stations, ENG, etc. embrace it? No. Low-end did. When SVHS came out, the same. When DV came out, the same. Today, many professionals and TV stations are still using beta cameras and decks. I don't know of a single TV station that uses DV as their primary source of feed. Now when HD came along, different story. Now some stations are using HD, and that makes sense because it is practical to do so, and the ability to broadcast OTA HD and cable HD, and the fact that it is seven times their current resolution means it is worth it now. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to go that route.
What you have seen is in the areas where film was simply used as a workhorse
because thats all they had, those areas are making the switch. When VHS came along, maybe major movies weren't being made on it but you bet that the whole of the porn industry was overnight. When digital still cameras reached the point where Joe Q could buy one for the same price as a film camera AND the PQ was high enough quality, AND computers and internet became mainstream enough for him, Joe Q no longer needs the film camera FOR HIS PURPOSE. And that is your difference. JoeQ doesn't give a Rats ass about the aesthetic quality of him holding up a beer posing with his latest fish he caught out on the river. But you bet when a multi-million dollar production sits down to figure out how to make a 100' wide image look good, they are going to consider all of the possibilities, including film. And they have. And its up there in the box office numbers.
Another area of note is independent filmmakers. As I said before, indies wanted to make movies for no budget and throw them up against a wall and see if they stick. Previous to DV, they had to shoot on 16mm to get any sort of serious reaction at all. That kept 9/10 people out of the game due to the cost. That cost is a drop in the bucket for a major production. So when DV comes along suddenly theres a huge increase in indie no-budget filmmaking but budgeted productions don't budge except where it is necessary. And thats where we are now, 15 years after DV came out.
Sitcoms and network drams are still shot on film, budgeted productions are still shot on film. As the need for CGI and digital intermediates are assessed, the desire to shoot digitally, mixed or wholly, goes up. But that doesn't speak for the volumes of films that don't need those and it doesn't mesh with the current format of projection out there. Digital filmmaking for major release is still given the situation only marginally less expensive and in some cases MORE expensive, it is just as cumbersome to shoot and in some situaions, MORE cumbersome. And to be honest, I don't see THAT changing this year, or even next. Maybe in 5 years. Maybe in 10. But right now, the way it is is the way it is.