In that article I found out as very interested this statement from Allen. She points to cost and ‘competing platforms for eyeballs’ as the reason. But she says television is a much more exciting place for storytelling than it ever has been. Film is too expensive, with a reliance on blockbusters to get bottoms on seats.
I agree that Film is too expensive, but there is also so many low budget films with great stories and they made much more money than they cost. In my opinion it's not just about money, but also about people, how clever they are and how effectively they can work.
Other think is series. Film definitely isn't good for building series, and It's common sense that we have many great series in TV.
So yes, I agree with Allen, but it's not as easy to say what is better, always depend what we want to create, Film is always bigger, but is much more powerful in terms of audience and fame.