I disagree on the author's definition of "real". I see two ways they can be defined in the context of movies: Real could mean that the objects portraid look lik

I disagree on the author's definition of "real". I see two ways they can be defined in the context of movies: Real could mean that the objects portraid look like they were actually filmed through a camera; but it could also mean that the objects portraid look like the objects they're intended to portay. The former is easily achievable with practical effects. But the latter is in many cases ONLY achiavable with CGI, which in many cases already starkly outperforms any practical effects (admittably, to the detrement of realness according to the former definion in some cases). Which of the two you prefer depends on what it is you're looking for in movies. One motivation might be to see humans acting realistically, reacting to their environment and struggles. If that's all you're looking for, practical effects almost always win, because they allow budget to be allocated on actors and scripts, and actors have an easier time imagining to be in the situation they're acting to be in. Many blockbuster movies, however, are made with a different goal in mind. Marvel, Jurassic Park, Star Wars all don't have realistic human interactions and struggles as a primary value proposition, but interesting fantasy worlds and fights, with "sufficiently" realistic characters. I for one enjoy both types of movies, deeply, and I don't think that CGI ruins movies today. In particular, I don't think that CGI ruins movies like Jurassic Park or Star Wars, which in my view are great movies for the year they came out in, but by todays standard's are clearly objectively worse in almost any respect. Imagine something like the first star wars movie coming out today! Nobody would know about it, even fewer would care. Nostalgia is a powerful force.