Yeah i've heard about that, and i cannot agree with it for myself. My reasons for disliking it are extremely different from what they're saying. I don't mind the hyper realistic looking CGI from movies like Beowulf, Tron Legacy, Polar Express, and Avatar as much (if well done). The things that irritate me there are when the characters don't look realistic enough, despite trying to look realistic. They can usually create great looking models, but sometimes the eyes and mouths look deader than they should animation-wise (which isn't a flaw i would attribute to CGI, but rather a lack of animation on the creator's part). In the case of Polar Express, i guess it's the motion capture, but characters sometimes look like they're overly stiff or even having a seizure. They look like marionettes with a limited range of movement, it's creepy and awkward and looks nothing like real life. But overall, the movies they used for examples were actually CGI movies i was rather impressed with and didn't take much issue with (besides the eye and mouth movements like i mentioned).
It's more the goofy stuff i don't like in CGI. For animated movies such as Tangled or Meet the Robinsons, i just feel they work better with the hand drawn style. The characters tend to be animated extremely nicely, which i appreciate. But their actual models just don't tend to look right. I don't always dig the super deformed looks. And this doesn't just go for the human models, animal models don't always look right. Even environments sometimes just don't look right (though Pixar usually does a pretty good job at the environments at least).
I actually liked Al in Toy Story 2 though, thought he looked very detailed and well animated for a CGI model. I was quite impressed by him. I like the character models in Shrek as well, i don't completely hate that CGI style.
In terms of a ride using CGI though, my reasons for dislike are quite simple- i feel there's more depth and dynamics you can convey with a high quality animatronic model than a TV screen showing either CGI OR traditional animation. I feel somewhat cheated when a ride relies exclusively on what amounts to simply TV screens plastered on the walls. A little is tolerable, especially if it is used logically to enhance the scene. But for rides that are mostly or all just video clips, i feel cheated and can't help shake the feeling that the ride was cheaply made. Using well animated and designed animatronics give a subconscious feeling that they just put more effort into the ride.
The current iteration of Imagination rubs me this way, AND has ugly as sin CGI (though that's only one of the many issues). The Seas with Nemo again uses way too much "video screen" stuff and way too little actual physical animatronics (though i DID like the projection of Nemo and his friends inside the fish tank, that was clever and looked surprisingly good). And again getting into flamebait territory, not a fan of Toy Story Mania for just using TV screens either.
And i don't think anyone has to be reminded of this-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbrpqWkNqyo
Though in regards to the same movie, one bit of CGI WAS a huge improvement over the puppet-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOqzHTWK8B4
Although i'd choose the original Yoda over either of those two-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcjnbIF1yAA
