Here's my question... When didn't SFX of the past have a certain look, yes even "practical" SFX, that it could be argued brought attention to themselves? Is this really something that is only noticeable with modern CGI? And what of all the times that you DON'T notice CGI? The many instances that it's used and you weren't even aware, and it was done so because, frankly, using CGI is actually more practical in the end for film makers than... Well practical effects that so many have such warm feelings over?
My problem with this debate is that one side seems to be making an argument, or it seems to me anyway, that practical effects are always the superior choice but in context they would actually drive up costs, are more of a pain to use and would STILL look like SFX especially without CGI to cover up things like wires ect.