Physical scenes can take a long time to get right, but look much better if the actor is willing to put in the time. Jackie Chan is kinda famous for that, and his action scenes look really good (especially when compared to today's fight scenes of punch/cut/kick/cut/etc). Anyone who thinks acting is easy, just think about how hard it would be to not show relief and blow the take when it actually finally goes right.
Directors should use technology in measured doses and not overdo it with CGI and special effects. Classics such as Jason and the Argonauts did not rely oin computerized animation, it was all done using stop motion photography. Even movies like Gladiator have scenes and shots that were filmed using CGI even though they did not need to be shot that way. They are obvious to spot, such as an opening shot of the Coliseum, and it gives the movie a cheesy feel.
I enjoy CGI but nowadays I can tell it's CGI and that makes it a bit annoying. I still enjoy older movies that have no CGI so there's no reason why I wouldn't enjoy them now. There's plenty of movies being made, so there's room for a production crew to experiment and see if less CGI works well in this day and age.
Computer generated imagery when depicting varying degrees of un/reality offers a vibrant alternative to use of human stuntmen and insertion of other special effects, and also when excluding work with humans appropriating superhuman quality. Specifically, for example, when filming animals computer generated imagery is a vastly more humane alternative in place of incorporating animals into a violent scene. Yet, some actors perhaps disprefer heavy use of computer generated imagery when used to replace articulate types of human skill related to per se acting and acting-action preferences outside of computer generated imagery applied to architectural and land visualizations perhaps in a limited sense.