Mamma don't take my Kodacrhome away.
Well, she may not, but Kodak will.
And I really don't see digital as a replacement. Comparatively, digital sucks, but that's also a circumstance of lens quality, apertures available, speed of exposure, and focal length. But digital is cheap. And everybody is doing it. People wonder how I take such good photos (when I take them as photos instead of snapshots). It's because I have photo training using film. Trust me, forcing a CCD to behave like chemical film is a bitch. And there are several techniques (light painting for instance) that will disappear. Many people don't know that the photos they've seen everyday can't be done on digital (tire photography, many of those tire images you see in the ads have exposure times best rated in either whole or fractions of hours). CCDs have a time limit, unlike film where you can let an image build up. After so long a CCD will lose it's charge.
But then there are cool things you can do digitally that you couldn't do with film. I'm not sure the trade off is worth it, but ask me in twenty years. By then we should have seen the digital analog to Ansel Adams or Al Stieglitz.