There's good digital effects and bad digital effects. Sadly, most digital effects are in the bad category. Compare say Pleasantville's use of digital color chan

There's good digital effects and bad digital effects. Sadly, most digital effects are in the bad category. Compare say Pleasantville's use of digital color changes over time to make the story come alive with the changes the main characters experience. It really sells the story properly without looking out of place. Whereas stuff like what's listed from Justice League and The Force Awakens fails because they don't fit well with the story. Like Cyborg wouldn't need to be a CGI overladen presentation if they did subtle practical effects backed up with equally subtle digital effects. Steppenwolf is a whole separate problem of visualizing the character. Making him completely CGI was a mistake. For The Force Awakens, the same issue is apparent with Maz Kanata in that she should've been partially a practical effect prop such as what John Favreau did with Baby Yoda on the Mandolorian and then augment the practical side with digital effects to make it pop. Also, I'll say that there's one area that digital effects beat out old ones: matte paintings. Digital matte paintings are far better than what came before and allow for greater degree of flexibility for shots. But they've been abused for replacing location shoots for them entirely. Edit: I would also put Joseph Kosinski's Oblivion in the list of good digital and practical effects blending along with some location shots. It's really one of those things that once you notice who does it better you begin to realize that CGI and green screen alone isn't sufficient. You have to mix all the methods together (practical, digital, matte, etc) to achieve the look you're after rather than pretending someone using a 3d modeling tool can magically whip up the look in post-production.