Ebert's heart is in the right place, but there are a number of reasons why his heart just isn't in the same place as the motion picture industry. He outlines a

Ebert's heart is in the right place, but there are a number of reasons why his heart just isn't in the same place as the motion picture industry. He outlines a few, and others have been mentioned in other comments here, but what I see as being most harmful for advanced film technology is green screening. So many of the most recent summer blockbuster movies are just shot against a green screen and essentially animated in post. Shoot a few actors delivering their dialog and a few crushing blows against the backdrop and animate the entire picture in CGI. It's a horrific way to make a movie, but it seems to please audiences enough. These movies may not gross big numbers at the box office, but they turn a profit because they're cheap to make. Shooting the live action bits in digital make the entire process easier as well. Cinematography is, unfortunately, a dying art. Capturing gorgeous images on the best recording medium available and projecting them through the best glass with the purest light possible just isn't important to the big production companies. Instead, "churn and burn" is the name of the game. it's akin to the old pulp comics of years past, where good storytelling and artwork gave way to shock value to generate sales. If movies aren't there yet, they're close.