I concur with Dorkman, I would add more realistic CG camera moves.  The stuff they do nowadays is physically impossible in some regards.

^^ Agreed. This allows for the best of both worlds, where you get amazing real stunt-work, but it's still a step above what you'd see in a movie made 20 years ago. Stuff like the train sequence in Skyfall, where they actually have shots with craig running along the top of that train (with wires removed in post), or the dubai sequence in Ghost Protocol, or the recent Van Damme splits commercial.

The other favorite I like is successful face replacement, so you can have stuntmen doing crazy stunts for real and then replace with the real actor when necessary.

I think those 2 can greatly free a filmmaker in terms of how they can film a sequence, without losing the tactile reality that makes real stuntwork truly exciting.

Ehh.....I sorta agree, but not entirely. My favorite part of Tin-Tin is the crazy 1-take chase sequence, because it lets Spielberg have fun with the freedom of a virtual camera. If you're making an animated movie anyway, there's some merit in taking advantage of the possibilities of the format (assuming the choices fit the type of movie you're making, which in the case of Tin-Tin, a goofy light-hearted adventure story, is the case).

I imagine it'd be a little freaky. I like the happy medium Pixar has been going for (and, IMO, accomplished with Monsters U) where they're sub-surface "fake material" characters and ambient occlusion, with increasingly pretty lighting.

I am a huge fan, both of the graphic novels and the magnificent 2011 film.

Returning to the earlier posts about it, I'm not sure there's anything specific I could mention that didn't work - given the familiarity with the source material. I never felt it hit the "uncanny valley" with the characters - rather sailed right over and on to the other side.

Agreed - The Astrology Boy abortion looked like a Pixar film for crying out loud. Everyone has a copy of Renderman.