In regards to the whole "CGI versus Models" arguement, I think it has everything to do with how light reacts to a model, as well as things CGI artists do NOT take into account such as how parts of a model may be out of focus due to proximity and lighting, atmospheric effects, etc.

Most CGI stuff (from Pete Jackson's KONG to the Prequel's ships and sets) look a little fake to the degree that there is so MUCH detail and effort to get every little thing right that something almost subconcious stands out as... well, wrong. It also amazes me how certain shots in movies (a lot of the scenes in ID4 or the subway scene in the first MATRIX.. or hell, the helicopter roof fight as well) where you find out that said "model" was CGI or the set that the actors were fighting in didn't even exist. Now THAT amazes me.

Even then, CGI is all over the place. When the dinosaurs in the first JURRASIC PARK can look damn near real and yet we still have $150 million + movies where the CGI stands out, you just have to wonder what the hell is going on in these FX houses.

__________________________________

To me, CGI works the best when enhancing something like a set, model or guy in a creature suit (hell, for that matter, just cleaning up the FX work: getting rid of zippers and wires) or when used for things in the background. Models or photography using existing locations (cities or otherwise) work the best due to what I described above. So models in the foreground and CGI in the back...