I'm not sure you understand how film exposure works, otherwise you wouldn't make the statement that there are "pretty good negative scanners out there." A Panaflex or Arriflex with a top quality lens and loaded with a top quality B&W film stock is going to provide a LP/mm depth that will exceed most (not all) scanners capability, unless you push it to an almost unmanageable file size. So there's that. Plus the depth of tone you get from the film's inherit structure can't be replicated (yet) with CCD's. The only digital camera now that can even approach the depth of film's inherit tone and grain is a Red Cinema camera shooting in RAW format, but you risk losing that benefit, depending on the level of compression used to create manageable files sizes for editing. Then despite what ever steps were taken to maintain either the film to digital transfer, or the high quality original digital shots, depending on the equipment used to render the final product can take all that away. Not all post-production digital films, Blu-Ray included, look great once rendered. That in and of itself is an art form.
So just because it's shiny and new and electronic doesn't mean it's going to be better. A brand new LP, carefully mastered, played on a high quality turntable through a tube amp will provide higher dynamic range than any digital audio system ever could. There are some place analog's always going to win.