Hey, if you shoot film, you're comfortable with your results and enjoying yourself, then you're right, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just don't expect film to be the equal of the digital world because it never will be. Regarding Velvia, I do apologize, my comments were made relative to using that film for indoor and landscape, rather than for astrophotography.
Things like clipped whites and lost shadow details can be recovered much more easily and fully with digital. For shooting something requiring a wide dynamic range/exposure latitude, like the fine filamentary coronal details of a total solar eclipse, no film can come remotely close to the dynamic range that can be extracted from digital shooting & processing.
Scanning and stacking can be done with film but, in the end, the effective ISO and consequently the graininess, can be kept much lower with digital. This is perhaps most evident in planetary and lunar imaging where 1000s of images can be stacked to create one final image. Also, if you're glued to the "look" of a particular film, any digital output can be matched to that film by using available add-ons and apps, just choose your film preference and check the little box.
As far as digital life or degradation, technological obsolescence really isn't a factor. There will always be many file conversion programs that will take any loss-less format (TIFF, true loss-less RAW, etc.) and convert that to a future loss-less file format with zero degradation. The same might not always be true for lossy files like JPEG. Negatives are good for perhaps a few lifetimes, transparencies for maybe a single lifetime. That said, if you act before the termites eat them, negs and slides can match digital image files by being scanned to digital for preservation.
And just a guess but I suspect film shooters today are more likely to be computer-phobic or simply don't want to navigate the learning curve that comes with the many techniques involved and various image processing programs like PhotoShop. Digital results keep getting better and better and a key factor is because the processing software gets more and more sophisticated (read - less intuitive and harder to use). Someday artificial intelligence will hopefully simplify all of this. So when it comes to results, digital wins but, when it comes to simplicity, film wins. Bottom line is that, as a hobby, it should be all about enjoyment but I've seen many people give up astrophotography over the years because it became too complicated and was no fun anymore. So does that open the door for film to make a comeback (like vinyl records) because it's simple? Well, don't bet on it.