Upon further inspection, the films just don't look real at all. It honestly looks like one big animated film with real actors dubbed in. Now the one thing about real sets, is you are constrained on what you can do, and that is what is so appealing to CG, is that you can do almost anything.
Yours is a point Lucas always makes. But, I would argue that this is precisely why cg should not be used, or used only sparingly. Not only does cg allow you to do things that you can't do with sets...it allows you to do things that you just shouldn't do...like turning Yoda into a teenage mutant ninja turtle. Those things that shouldn't be done are a big part of what so weakened the PT. The entire focus of the PT was the technology used to make them...just listen to the commentary. That's all they talk about. Note to LFL...we don't need Rob Coleman, or anyone else, to tell us when a shot is cg. It's pretty glaringly obvious! If they had spent 10% of that energy on the story and the script, the PT would have been amazing instead of amazingly bad.
George should read a philosophical page from his own book..."just because you can do something doesn't mean you should."
Thank merciful god that Lucas didn't have the technology available back in the 70s to do what he did with the PT. If he had, Star Wars would suck. The more time goes on, the more apparent it becomes that Star Wars succeeded in spite of George Lucas, not because of him.