practical effects are never real, unless someone genetically engineers a monkey and this monkey leads a revolution and news crews happen to catch every single event then its not real. Its just a guy in makeup. I get what your trying to say, but your missing the point of suspension of disbelief.
I don't see makeup as any more real than CGI, and I honestly don't care how good or bad the CGI or makeup is as long as the story works. I can pick out make-up and it never looks real to me and its the same with CGI. Does the movie have to be made by Pixar to have CGI? Does a movie have to be totally CGI for it to be believable? Or can they integrate CGI and live action? This very thinking means I could never watch an old movie like Nosferatu and enjoy it, because I have to have the expectation that everything has to be photo-real and perfect for it to be good, and any instance of fakeness means its automatically bad. That movie doesn't even have sound, and I can't even get the original soundtrack (originally played by a guy with a piano in the background of the theatre) so I have to get some dollar dvd of it with some forward by David Caradine with weird cover goth band music, but i can suspend disbelief for 94 minutes and get into the story. Why, because I don't take everything so unbelievably serious that I cannot enjoy myself.
I could never watch Metropolis, Wizard of oz, ghost busters, original King Kong, Star Wars, and Jason and the Argonauts!, having the assumption that everything had to be perfect all the time. I'm not under the assumption that everything film makers do must be perfect, and I think it's really disrespectful to discount what they do as **** because its isn't perfect. What I do however, is grade them on how they compare to others and everything I've seen before, and more specifically grade them against whats been on screen in the last 5 years and I think that is much more fair. As far as it goes, because I've been watching a lot of movies, I would say it compares favorably. They put in a good effort.
You want to generalize and say everyone has bad taste, and this could be subjective, but that's a terrible blanket argument. Not everyone likes American Idol, or Britney Spears. The foolish thing to do is the be willfully ignorant. If I was willfully ignorant of food I'd never try Menudo because its cow intestines. I'm aware **** goes through it, but I'm also aware they clean it out and it tastes fantastic, but I guess I have bad taste. Apparently, so do millions of Latinos who eat it all the time. At least the can say for sure what appeals to their tastes because they tried it.
With this logic you're combining the logical fallacies of Ad Hominem Abusive and Hasty Generalization at the same time.
The addage goes "Don't knock it, till you tried it". You saw 2 minutes of a 105 minute movie. Unless you watch the other 103 minutes your opinion on the movie is meaningless. Its a prejudice opinion. However, I'd figure by now you wouldn't be able to watch the movie with the proper objectivity. I can however say in my opinion, and opinions are like assholes and everyone has one, that this movie has the best story of any in the franchise since the first one. Also, because it has such a good story, even if it we're called World of the Simians with no ties to the franchise it could stand up on its own because it is a totally different movie.