I respectfully disagree with your premise. I don’t believe that we can ‘keep film alive’ by moving into the 21st century. We can keep it alive by doing we we are good at (Photograms, Polaroid’s, landscapes, photojournalism, portrait, wedding, street, abstract, etc., etc., etc,…)
We obviously are all in the 21st century, what some choose to photograph is reflective of his or her interest. If Andy Warhol were alive today, he would be doing prints of Justin Bieber, while Ansel Adams would probably still be largely doing timeless landscapes. How one embraces themselves in respect to this artistic medium is so personal and germane to his/her preference of aesthetics, that your postulation that we as a community need to move forward out of the sepia and timeless landscapes and capture reality more; a overreaching goal. What I enjoy so much of my analog brethren here is our diversity and your desire to move from timeless to modern banal/real would be as paradoxical of sitting Warhol and Adams down back in the day and asking each other to ‘do the other thing’. It is almost like we are a bunch of folks who like Ferraris, there are old Ferraris and new ones; those who have reverence to the old ones that is fine, those with reverence to the new ones that is fine too and those with reverence for both is fine also; everyone wins when we all like Ferraris (err analog photography).