CGI is great for compositing, but I've still never seen a live-action movie that has really convincing organic CGI characters - even in the most high budget, state of the art stuff I've seen the CGI characters just don't ahve any weight to them. My favorite thing about this video is it makes me realize a lot more practical stuff is still sued than I realized.

Plus building this stuff seems infinitely more fun than 3d modeling (which is pretty fun itself).

I've seen good and bad in both. The best is when you can't tell which is which or if it's even going on. There are loads of films where both techniques are used and I didn't even realize the shot had any effects work done.

Other times, it comes down to which just appeals more. I find both puppet-Yoda and CGI-Yoda to be equally fake, but the puppet has a lot more charm. Conversely, I find that it's difficult to beat CGI for machines, robots, etc. I do like the T-800 Endoskeleton models, but if you're going to have a full-body shot of one performing complex actions, animatronics still looks like a store mannequin with stiff joints. The same applies to when they try to use animatronics for large motions that are supposed to appear fluid.

It's also a matter of craft. Using the Star Wars prequels again as a model (just for effects, the plot is toxic), look at the Nemoidian aliens that ran the trade federation. They were animatronic masks which could have used some tweaking from CGI for effect. If they'd rendered some eye-blinks or a few twitches in the mouths, they'd have seemed a lot less like man-sized puppets (which probably means the masks were either made by less experienced hands or done on the cheap). Not that it would have helped the film or anything.

I had the LOtR trilogy in mind, myself. All of the landscapes and compositing and all of that are almost flawless, but the actual CGI characters like Gollum are compelling on their own as cartoons but don't sit in the film at all. I appreciate 3d CGI as an art for for sure but I feel like it's more successful when it's stylized.

A bigger issue for me is the impact it has on the actors' performance. With practical effects the actors are actually interacting with something, and that has a tendency to improve the awful, lifeless performances that are endemic in effects-heavy film these days.

I agree with you on machines and robots for sure, although I still feel like the increased realism of the CGI character is usually more than offset by the decreased realism of the live actors' performances when they are interacting with it. Honestly, something like John Carpenter's The Thing maybe be less "realistic" looking but the performances sell it better than anything comparable I can think of from the CGI era.