Not sure I grasp the meaning of the original post.

Well, if somebody uses film to take pictures of "not modern", or "timeless" subjects, and uses digital to take pictures of modern subjects - if that's the juice - then IMO he's overthinking photography.

I personally use film and digital in exactly the same manner and for exactly the same subjects. A picture is a picture. Film and cameras are just tools. They have some technical peculiarities, they can somehow have an influence on the work, but they don't dictate the work beyond their technical differences.

I don't know what happens in Flickr, but if really there was a correlation between use of film and non-modern subjects, I think flickr users have a problem with photography.

This is a bit as if, at the beginning of photography, painters - photographers had used painting for landscapes and photography for locomotives. Instead, they used painting for locomotives and photography for landscapes with the same enthusiasm.