In the hands of a sufficiently talented team, film does not look better than digital, because digital can be made to look just like film: https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-de...
A film that exists is better than one that never gets made.
Digital reduces the cost required to get certain shots; makes certain shots possible that would be impossible with film; integrates more directly into cheaper digital production workflows that make it possible to pull of effects that would be impossible on film…
Much as we may nostalgically enjoy the aesthetic of the optical compositing of original Star Wars special effects, they were incredibly expensive and - compared to what can be done today for a fraction of the cost with all-digital workflows (eg in the Disney plus Star Wars shows), objectively not as good.
Some might disagree. The democratization of content creation that happened with the internet and social media was in general a good thing, but it can't be denied that it also resulted in a massive reduction of the Signal to Noise ratio in content quality. The reason the Google search result page is much worse today is precisely because there exits tons of content today that should never have been made.
So when more stuff gets made, more crap gets made. But the 10% that's good gets bigger too.
You want a world that contains Everything Everywhere All At Once? You have to also accept The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies as well. Sorry.