@tvaziri I think people have seen movies that do CGI badly and assume that's "normal" CGI because they noticed it. Good CGI should be so good you don't notice it. Think of how many shots with CGI you've pointed out where nobody would have known how much CGI was used for it without your insight (the Madmen 'unmaster' upscale fiasco for example that let through a bunch of shots without CGI applied). It shouldn't be done in a way that actors are confused about what they're reacting to, it shouldn't be whatever was done in much of the Clash of the Titans reboot. Sometimes things can look too slick/clean with improperly implemented CGI. Those are some of the things I think people are complaining about. But then it swings too far and people think "we have to do all practical!" Which isn't a realistic business or technical decision nowadays. Finding the right balance of practical with CGI is the key and it depends on the project/scene/movie/vision etc.

@tvaziri maybe we need better language for what these folks are trying to convey. There was a frustration with overt CGI used in place of traditional techniques (sets that look like they are just green walls and boxes) and now that there is a bit more of a blending of the two (practical backdrops that can be digital altered later, practical standins for characters or scenery for what will later be replaced or altered digitally), as filmmakers learn how to incorporate both for the best result, that is being preferred. Having someone with your insight into the process has been helpful to my understanding and I'm less in the "CGI bad" camp than I would be without your insights.