And, as has been said many times before, to a large extent it's simply that technology has and continues to improve. So, certain films today are praised for "looking real" even when they contain more digital trickery (to borrow Geoff's term) than films from 15 years ago that were criticized for looking too digital, because of more primitive tech producing less convincing results.
I've grown more and more accepting of CGI as the years gone by, but agreed (with you Velvet) that more of a mix is preferable when I can have it. It's interesting to note that, at least when it comes to creature effects, practical effects seem to be experiencing a bit of a resurgence. The new Star Wars films have a lot of animatronic/puppet creatures; Jurassic Park 5/World 2 is, according to the filmmakers, going to make much greater use of animatronic dinosaurs than its predecessor (which had one animatronic dinosaur head in one scene); and Godzilla: King of the Monsters is going to feature practical monster effects, though it's unknown in what capacity. Still, it's more than its 2014 predecessor where the monsters were 100% CGI all the time.
I guess sometimes it's down to fan demand (Jurassic Park, where many voiced their disappointment over the absence of the beautiful animatronics from the first three films), while often it's director preference. According to rumors, Rian Johnson even went so far as to have a giant puppet Snoke made for The Last Jedi, where Abrams relied exclusively on CG for the same character. Michael Dougherty, who's directing and writing Godzilla 2, is a huge proponent of practical effects, so it's also not surprising he'd push for that.
|