Practical Effects or VFX?

This article was about the differences of CGI effects and Practical Effects in movies. It shows some examples and asks practical effects veterans Rick Baker and Tom Savini. The first example shown is the transformation of a human to a werewolf in two different movies. The first being the new movie "American Werewolf in Paris" This shot was entirely done in CGI and definitely has a different look to it than the other shot. The other shot being "American Werewolf in London" which is the first film, where the shot was done with practical effects. This shot also has a very different feel to it. Then in the last clip Practical Effects veterans Baker and Savini explain the differences between the two, and how they can both be used to create an equal balance.
I found this article very interesting and I liked it quite a bit. First of all about the Werewolf argument. Overall I liked the practical effect better, but there where parts in both sequences I thought looked a little weird and obvious. In my opinion, I think that Practical effects are much better for things like this. Up close and personal shots. But I think CGI is essential for creating giant ensemble shots that practical effects couldn't even dream of making. It's best to find a mix between the two and find which one works for your specific shot. There's nothing more awkward when CGI is un-necessarily used in a shot that would work far better practical, or when a practical effect is painfully obvious and that CGI would have much better suited it. And this is basically what the two Practical Effects veterans where saying as well. It's not about which one is better and taking over the other, but rather finding a mix between the two and see what works best for creating the most immercive effect.