Elmofongo: And have you seen Lord of the Rings? Their CGI is already dated looking compared to the Hobbit.
And Hobbit's CGI will look dated in a few years too. LotR practical effects however, don't and won't.
Elmofongo: The Wargs come to mind.
The Hobbit's wolfs looked way worse on release day, than LotR wargs do now.
Elmofongo: In the end I just find you guys dislike of CGI annoying as is your nostalgia of the Olden days of Practical effects where everything. Grow up and accept that CGI has replaced practical effects, And anyone who makes new movies using cheap looking props just for the sake that it "Looks" real are just hipsters :P
Calm down, dude. No one is going to take your precious fake looking instantly dated CGI away. I'm not leading some Butlerian Jihad against all computers. If you were not so emotional in your defence of CGI, you'd notice that I said it's best to use both, blend them for the best possible effect, like in Interstellar. But you were way to busy throwing a tantrum about Batman and Superman for some reason :D
I can't help the fact, that CGI looks fake to me. I did not decide to like practical effects more to sound cool, it's just what I honestly think. Jim Henson build whole fantastic worlds for his movies, all practical. When something like that is attempted with all CGI, the result is always poor. Peter Jackson's King Kong, Avatar, Maleficent... it's just not fooling anyone.
Elmofongo: I already accepted that Traditional 2D Animantion is forever dead and replaced by the cheaper Flash animation :P
And does that make Flash better or traditional 2-d worse? No. So what exactly does that prove?