Yes! Which was always Stan Lee's philosophy for the Marvel heroes in the first place. I'm a big believer in different methods for different mediums, but you could argue the flat look for these movies actually makes it more true to the comics than not in this sense.

Fantastic post. Hugely important. Thank you for sharing.

This is a book that's basically all about this topic and even specifically this same angle on it, written by a woman in the 1930s. It pretty much saved my brain from creative self-destruction and is always a great help when self-doubt creeps back in: http://www.amazon.com/You-Want-Write-Brenda-Ueland/dp/1614271356/ref=sr_...

*by Theo Roosevelt I think. Yes, a good one!

Excellent video and article.

The point touched on in the vid (and raised by Charlie McDanger above) about physics differences between CGI and practical effects is sometimes applicable but other times not. For example, use of miniatures is a practical effect but miniature versions of life-sized objects do not behave in the same way as their full-scale counterparts when in movement. Other tricks are incorporated, such as shooting a mini explosion or falling building at fast fps for slo-mo, to account for the difference. Just like with CG, effects artists have gotten better with these techniques over time.

To a certain degree, however, we also just get more and more used to how a given type of effect looks and feels, and how that translates into what we accept as real. Animatronics, for example, often create a very particular look. And while it might be easy for us as modern audiences to pick it out, at the height of that technology's use (the video rightly highlights Jurassic Park which is also notable here) it was accepted as natural and realistic.