Except that's a load of nonsense. Never mind that cinema history is littered with good examples of people being unable to discern CG from practical, it's just not true, no matter which way you look at it. What a bad comparison Man of Steel is to inherently more grounded movies too, but that's another topic in itself; the better quality is not necessarily due to doing everything in-camera.

Plenty of awful practical effects out there that verifiably do not leave you "with a sense of wonder" by any reasonable stretch, and plenty of CG effects completely sell a shot - even those that very clearly betray the medium. More importantly, practical effects are so stupidly inflexible, it's laughable how much people defend it because of a vague feeling it might look slightly more... what, authentic?

Never mind how cheaper good 3D work has gotten and then get a grip on how ridiculously high the ceiling is for improvements in term of both efficiency and abstraction... CG is already such a useful and great tool, saying reference shots for them look better is a very narrow view of the issue. And then consider how the movies lauded for realism and natural compositing are still just VFX slugfests, be it the houdini sims for all kinds of sand plates in Dune or all kinds of decals and elements composited - CG leaves you with every bit the sense of wonder and all that keeps you from enjoying it the same is your pre-misconceptions you brought into the movie. Maybe CG in 1990 was jank BS, but those times are long behind us now.