I agree that the criticism undoes itself. The negative CGI we talk about is the negative CGI we notice; we don't talk about all the CGI that we never notice, of

I agree that the criticism undoes itself. The negative CGI we talk about is the negative CGI we notice; we don't talk about all the CGI that we never notice, of which there is a huge amount. Take for example the movie 1917[0], a WWII film that's extremely practical. They actually dug trenches for the actors to run/walk through, they actually built a bombed out town for a central set-piece, and they actually had huge numbers of men running across a battlefield. Yet it's also the case that the movie seamlessly transitions from filmed shots of actors to complete CGI replacements for multiple seconds before transitioning back to filmed shots of actors, without a single cut or transition, and no one would know that unless you watch the effects breakdown.[0] I agree that CGI is almost certainly a massive vitalizing force. CGI is making it possible for creators, hollywood or no, to build far beyond what was ever possible to those creators in decades past. Take this tiny short film, "Royal Dumplings"[1], a student made short film for no budget[2] . Made with a camera, green cloth backdrop, and hardware store lights. What we get to see on screen, even if "un-real", is so vastly more interesting than what we'd have gotten 30 years ago at this price that I don't care. [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_llajTMEXI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_llajTMEXI [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRt39HkI-e8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRt39HkI-e8 [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbBbq9M-NzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbBbq9M-NzA