It's not cgi itself that I question. I question bad special fx works, be it models and matte paintings or cgi. In the case of the old StarWars movies the special fx are a crucial part of film history - it doesn't matter if they are outdated or not, since they represent the bleeding edge of special fx at that time. It was the best you could get then. If you simply replace them instead of releasing a seperate director's cut while at the same time making the original cut available again, you violate an artists ethical obligation towards culture and society. That's what bothers me the most.

What is clearly obvious is that cgi is far from looking photorealistic, which gives scenes that have a lot of it in them a 'cartoony' or 'computer gamy' touch that can be contra-productive for the atmosphere of the scene/movie. On the other hand, if you look at the prequels there is also non-cgi stuff that was done very badly (Palpatine's make-up or Episode I Yoda anyone?), which proves that the special fx guys need to know their stuff and they need enough time to get it right - some or all of that was certainly not the case in the prequels.

I think it was Zebonka who pointed out that almost any feature film of the past year that heavily relied on cgi doesn't withhold a second closer look - so yeh, there are many rush jobs in terms of special fx out there - it's not the cgi thing itself, imho.