The fact TDK triggered off a conscious reexamination for some of how much CG you NEED vs how much you actually should use (in tandem with physical effects) might mean the pendulum swings back the other way a bit, at least on some productions.
There's too much inertia to avoid CG overkill for most thing these days now, but I think very high end AND very low-end artistic shows are going to be doing more with the physical (by physical I mean full-scale effects AND originating with old-fashioned miniature/photographic work) when it is smart to do so rather than everything whole-cloth CG as an automatic response.
Until you've got CG that is routinely finished at 4K (with elements scanned at 6K or higher) and a better appreciation for photographic tonalities incorporated into the CG work, I think there's going to continue to be a marked difference between most high-end traditional vfx work and even the best CGI efforts (at least to my eye.)
Yeah, I have a degree in computer animation but I agree with you.
The good thing about CG is that it's allowed people who might otherwise not have the resources do do visual effects to produce some very good work -- and produce some quality videos/films.
It's certainly taken the fan films to the next level. So, for that...I am grateful for CG.
But, like you...I can always tell when something is CG.
I miss the days of "models, spit and chewing gum".