Sometimes it's the imperfections that we are attracted to. I started with digital audio a long time ago, but have been buying almost solely analog equipment (synths, effects, reel2reel) for the past 5 years. Often it just sounds more alive. I still use digital too, a lot, but it's nice to have another type of texture in the tool box.
Not sure I'd film on Super 8 though, it ends up being pretty costly and hassly, and you can get a pretty good match to those colours (if that's what you want) using flat or RAW profiles and film stock LUTs on digital cinema cameras
I think analog synths are in a different category because they generate sound vs capturing it. When it comes to instruments like that you can't make an argument that digital does it better because that is subjective. Similarly I don't think a synth with guitar sampled mod can replace the guitar because it would be impossible (or very hard) to capture all quirks/permutations of strings together. You could make a case that capturing guitar sound digitally is better than on analog, which is more in line with what's Kodak is doing
As far as art, it's all subjective, there is no "better" :) Accurate - now that's a different story.
And I agree with you, analog nonlinearities are more apparent when you generate the sound.
Having said that, as a practical example, there is a big difference in the sound of drums (loud, fast transients) recorded to tape vs digitally. I really like the sound of tape for certain things. For some things, it doesn't make that much of a difference. The amount of mojo depends on your tape recorder, tape formulation and amount of overdrive.
Not sure I'd film on Super 8 though, it ends up being pretty costly and hassly, and you can get a pretty good match to those colours (if that's what you want) using flat or RAW profiles and film stock LUTs on digital cinema cameras