I think the biggest problem with high-budget, CGI heavy movies, is that they make the movies backwards when you rely on computer graphics too much.

When you make a primarily practical effects movie, you have to plan out everything before you start shooting. When you make a primarily CGI effects movie, you can shoot, then do the effects later. Also, many primarily CGI focused movies use multiple contractor companies to make the effects, and they never have to talk to each other.

Then you have the issue where the actors don't even need to be in the same room to shoot their parts, cause it's all greenscreened in a soundstage.

I think a movie that's mostly CGI can be great, as long as the same care is taken as a mostly practical effects movie. Do all the planning beforehand, have the actors move around and interact with each other, and physical things. Have the artists involved with the lighting and camera work, so they're all part of the process.

I may have misunderstood what Sir whatshisbucket said in the interview. Perhaps he was being hyperbolic. I know there is CGI in the original trilogy.

The Hobbit movies looked bad because they were rushed.

Wasn't it also because a lot of people watched them in HFR initially? There was so much complaining about the "soap opera" effect when the first one came out, but one other downside was it was just easier to spot imperfections with smoother panning.