Well, you did hit the nail on the head by saying that they are all fake. A special effect is just a special effect. But it's not as simple as that, either, and it's especially not as simple to say that CG trumps any other form of special effects. I don't hate CG. I understand that it's a necessary form of special effects, and it's coming along nicely. However, that doesn't mean that other methods are suddenly obsolete. Models are fake because they aren't actually what they're representing, but they do take up physical space, so they are real from that perspective. Take a look at Back to the Future Part III (I think you've mentioned that you hate this movie, but bear with me anyway). For the climax, they built a scale model of the train and plunged it into the ravine. Granted, CG technology was at its infancy then, but even now, do you think a superior shot could have been achieved through just making a computer generated environment and a computer generated train? Comparable, maybe, but not as real. For another example, look at Serenity. Through the TV series and the movie, the ship had been entirely CG. But in the climax of the movie when the ship crashes, they built a model for those shots alone instead of doing it with computers because they needed something more real that could actually take damage and be pulled apart. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that both models and CG have their appropriate uses. But a lot of us here feel we have to overzealously hold on to models and puppets because we're being constantly told by people like you that those methods are completely obsolete and that CG is the only way to go. CG doesn't need an advocate. Models do.