Most of the author's complaints are centered around CGI used for moving objects, especially in focus. So humans, vehicles, robots, anything like that. CGI does

Most of the author's complaints are centered around CGI used for moving objects, especially in focus. So humans, vehicles, robots, anything like that. CGI does seem perfectly suitable to model backgrounds, but the moment it's used to show movement, the difficulty of doing it right goes way up. > For an example off the top of my head, I know Wolf of Wall Street had a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP2sJqoZD7g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP2sJqoZD7g Yea those are all background replacements. When watching the movie two scenes stood out to me as very unreal-feeling CGI: the helicopter landing and the boat during the storm. And indeed, it's all CGI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D7MqlNWUEs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D7MqlNWUEs. It's awful - just look at that piece breaking off at 0:26. The scene at 2:30 is egregious as well. Modeling the physics of such a complex scene well enough to be convincing to humans is essentially impossible. We are far too attuned to how our physical world works to be fooled by anything less than perfect. Use CGI where it makes sense - for mostly static backgrounds. For movement, use practical effects. Let the universe do the physics simulations for you.