Digital may look great, but all this talk of different film stocks and speeds makes me wonder if we haven't lost something of the art of photography. You could do some really lovely things with different camera's, lenses and film back then. Isn't it all a bit 'vanilla' these days?
Even if shot on film, there's still all of the digital processing that results in the product looking no different than another that was digitally shot. That's why Christopher Nolan doesn't use DI, and has his films traditionally mastered (example, instead of color timed digitally, he color times his films chemically). That's one of the things that bugs me about the Abrams Star Trek films. If you visit the set and take a photo, the set looks great and vibrant. On his films, the colors look all washed out because the film has been processed so many times digitally. That's why the films before XI seem more vibrant looking, at least to my eyes. That's why the news of STAR WARS returning to 35mm film doesn't really excite me, because in the end it's just going to look like any other over-processed film.
Sorry that's an incorrect assessment you're blaming the mere fact that films are post-produced in the digital domain (using a DI) on the intentional (mis)use of what you can do with the array of digital tools to a DI. Much of it is subject to the current fads in Hollywood. For example: the orange/teal coloring and the downplaying of film grain, since the average person thinks he/she likes razor sharp digital video. Blown out contrast is another fad that keeps sticking around, making outdoor scenes "sizzle", crushing dark scenes purposefully to obscure details, etc.
A DI done properly shouldn't do anything inherently to the image captured on the film (aside from reduce it's effective resolution to 2k or 4k of course).
I personally really like the look of film, but clearly the best way to deliver it right now is a digital scan of the finished film. Digital projection has been a huge boon for the average movie theater, gone are terrible generational loss prints of films, gone are stupid high school kids who can't properly load the 35mm film and ruin things for the audience, etc. etc.
Also While Nolan might not think he used a DI, it sure seems like there was in effect a DI when editing Inception
, you can read how it's clearly edited in the digital domain before being put back to 35mm for final approval here: