Practical effects are better than CGI

I see where you argue CGI is Useful and I do agree with the fact that it does require less material and is not as messy as say a practical effect would be. As in how you mentioned putting a wound on every warrior in 300 would be. However, time wise CGI takes even more time to put a wound on every warrior. For example, in each shot any real warrior (physically in the shot at any moment) can only range to about 1-15 people you can see wounded at the time. As that films are shot in sequences that may only use about 15 people for the day, doing the same shot for hours at a time. But Keeping time in mind, for a single make up artist, they can do about 50 small or great wounds in an hour. I know this because I was a make-up artist at a haunted house this past year, with about 1 year of experience I had to do, alone, 45 peoples make up in an hour. All of witch were to be zombies. When it comes to make up and effects, when someone is at a distance from the camera or viewer and injury may only have to be a single smear of dark makeup placed across in a line on someone's face or body to look good enough for the shot. With CGI, an editor has to go in, frame by frame on each individual and place the wound on the body for as many frames as the character is in the shot (This could be hundreds of frames, and individuals) and needs to render each of those frames. This process could take hours, or even days to use it, and complete the edited scene on the film. And even with the risk of the computer crashing and losing that work, they would have to do it all over again. The point I am really trying to make here is that, The only time you would need to do make up on hundreds of people, would be for a very large, wide shot, where half of the people would not even need make-up or wounds on them, because for a shot that massive, the distance of the camera to the individuals is so great, you wouldn't need make up on most of them, because you would not be able to see it anyway. The only time you would be able to argue is during the close ups, where a wound made with latex and corn-syrup blood looks much more real than a cgi, digital prosthetic. Another point I would like to argue is the creativity factor. Where CGI takes away from an artist. when an effect is done physically, it requires an artist to really think of a way they can get the effect to look as real as possible. The best example of this is in the original Nightmare on Elm Street and the recent remake. Specifically the scene where one of the female characters is getting attacked by Freddy in her dream and rolls up the wall, onto the ceiling and back onto the bed to be torn open. In the original, creators had to find a way to get her up the ceiling. Together they created rotating room and camera rig to get the shot, but in the new one, they cgi'd her body, and flung her around the room. Not only does it make the effect less creative. But it takes away from the feeling of the scene. Not to mention it makes the scene, lazy, when done with CGI. Taking from the last example of the nightmare on elm street movies, and one of CGI's worst qualities is the digital prosthetic used for Freddy's face instead of make-up. In the remake Freddy looks like an avatar, and in certain scenes even you can see his Prosthetic not quite synchronized to his face. This is a great example again of CGI's time consuming process. Rather than going into 2-3 hours of make up or less before each shoot. after shooting is completed a CGI artist must go in and Put on Freddy's face in every single frame, at every detailed angle for the shots to even work. witch takes months. The last point I'd like to bring up this round is that CGI also takes away from the actors. When an actor is faced with a physical puppet or effect. It leaves less up to their imagination and can even bring out an incredible performance when they can interact with something physical that reacts back to them. For this example I will point out that In the 2nd Harry potter movie, they had used CGI to supplement a practical effect witch was the Basilisk. This is where CGI is ok, as it just aids a animatronic, rather than solely existing on its own with no physical object. Anyway, my point, the animatronic was so real that It scared the Children and the actor so much that the performances given were real, they were genuinely scared. Bringing their performances to a whole new level. Something you just can't get without a physical effect.