I won't drag on this discussion as we both surely have better things to do :), but just one last comment: > This whole “practical vs CGI” battle is literally j

I won't drag on this discussion as we both surely have better things to do :), but just one last comment: > This whole “practical vs CGI” battle is literally just a construct of marketing that people are fed as a form of virtuoso. It's really not. I can have preferences as to which movies I enjoy more, can't I? _For me_, practical effects are just more enjoyable and immersive to watch. When CGI reaches that level of realism—and you're right that in many ways it already has—I would still appreciate the result more if I knew that the effects were done physically, with all the challenges that poses. With the advent of machine learning, CGI is being commoditized to a level where anyone can create high quality visuals. This is great in many ways, but at the same time, it requires a completely different set of skills, with arguably much less effort, and so I'll never appreciate it as much as the product done in traditional ways. You're free to think otherwise, and that's fine as well. :)