Kodak's still camera film sales are dropping, but actually they are selling more movie film than ever, both in negative and print stock. The indie division of Kodak basically sold twice as much negative stock (16mm & 35mm) than they did the year before, a huge increase. Fuji also tells me that they are having a record year for sales.
Of course, Kodak is more supported by their stills division, which is why they are hurting. Fuji less so -- they make more of their overall profits from patents and other technology. They are actually something like a 20 billion (?) a year company compared to Kodak's 16 billion a year (I may have those numbers wrong, but my point is that Fuji is a bigger corporation.)
Just from my job interviews, I used to have more of the lower-budgeted indie films tell me that they were going to shoot in HD and now more are telling me that they are shooting in Super-16.
My feeling is that instead of a gradual drop-off in film usage, we'll see a rapid drop-off once there are more 2K & 4K digital cameras and the post infrastructure to handle them AND they work out to be cheaper AND more efficient than film. But it will be awhile before that happens. Right now, 35mm and 16mm camera rental houses are booked solid due to an increase in production, and at the most, Panavision, for example, will eventually build 100 Genesis cameras, and their 100 or so Sony F900's are almost all continuously out shooting multi-camera sitcoms. So their 35mm equipment is more popular than ever.
It's a big industry and it will take a while before digital cameras equal 35mm AND then become cheaper to use (what's the point if they are the same quality but more expensive to use?)
Even now, we've had five years, nearly six, of the Sony F900, the camera that in 2000 caused so many people to say "film is dead". Not only did it not kill film, while it has found its niche in Hollywood, the truth is that the next generation of better HD cameras like the Viper or Sony F950 ultimately aren't much cheaper to use than film because they all require external recording systems that rent for as much as a second camera body, so your rental costs are double what the F900 is.
This is what I mean about the quality having to match what we already get with film (the F900 doesn't quite cut it) BUT be cheaper and easier to use than film. Right now, there are some better digital cameras that come closer to 35mm quality, but they don't meet the "cheaper than film" requirement, plus they are rather rare still.
So who knows, maybe in ten years the industry will make a sudden switchover to digital cameras, but what were you planning on doing for the next decade, sit it out and wait? Film is very much a reality TODAY and has to be dealt with as a major player.
