Maybe they got burnt by the
expensive alien ghosts..?
(I remember seeing that, and was impressed. Clearly my patronage didn't
quite scrape its income high enough to keep it out of the red, though. Haven't ever seen it on TV, or had any more recent opportunity to reappraise by more modern standards, so maybe it's... scratchy? Uncanny-valley? Something. And different from
Monsters, Inc., with the perhaps more reliably forgiving "cartoon computer imagery", yet still famously having all that CGI fur! And Shrek. Which is... Well... Shrek. The original. ...and these three all date to 2001, hence referencing them all against each other.)
Things do have their time, but pure-CGI tends to be use for a certain style of fictional worlds: The Incredibles. Cars. Bugs Life/Antz/Bee-Movie. Beowulf. Big Hero Six. Polar Express. Wall-E. Finding Nemo(/etc). The whole Toy Story thang, just to add to that list the lineage that probably inspired many of the rest of them... All 'photo unrealistic' (compared with even Luxo Jr., the two-minute short that made Pixar's name). And then there was that Tintin movie (deserved a sequel/series, IMO).
And then further played about with by increased
and averted realism in the Spderman/Multiverse type of thing. Clearly far more accurate 3D modelling, but rendered/post-textured with 'cartoon/comic skin', dithered-halftoning effects and snap-cut exchange of filters as a 'practical effect' rather than a careless mouse-click on a toolbar. (I bet it's an expensive and time-consuming business to create a "does not look at all real" film like that, compared to something... 'softer' on the eye. Maybe even trying to go hyper-realistic isn't these days as complicated as aiming for this kind of 'hypo-realistic', it just depends upon the libraries of procedures you've inherited from the last big project, and whether Andy Serkis has some time free in his calendar.)