Assuming the washed-out look of superimposed dinosaurs is your idea of "superb" then yes. Otherwise all of the up close work in JP was done by means of animatronic.I strongly disagree with your comment, as the CG in Jurassic Park was superb.
I will further explain my previous claim "There is no such thing as good CG".
Of course computer enhanced imagery has its place in films. Altering backgrounds, correcting for lighting or shadow detail, adding extra dusts/debris/splatter in complex action shots, adjusting colour, removing wires, et cetera.
The one area in which CG should NOT be used is in creating whoely digital characters. Computer technology is not currently able to create characters that can blend seamlessly with "on camera". The color-coding is always off (most CG creatures tend to have a greyish tone to them), the actors have nothing to react to (Some scenes in LOTR:ROTK had some ridiculous physical acting when trying to compensate for a CG gollum), Higher display technology further seperate the CG from the "real" (a fact further hampered by computers lack of 24FPSFR).
Filmmakers were crafting wonderful and "real" monsters decades ago. The Howling, The Thing, Tales from the Darkside, An American Werewolf in London, Dagon, Dracula (the 1992 version in this case), Alien, Aliens, and hundreds of other films actually produced a real physical monster on camera that actors and audiences could relate to. And they still look good when viewed today.
One possible good use of CG is editing two usable pieces of analog monster together. A man in a suit isn't able to have the "backwards" knees that many people want on a werewolf, use of CG could take animatronic, or puppetry Legs and graft that piece of film onto a "guy in suit" torso with a robot head.
CG is a tool. Don't make it your crutch.
)
