the thing with Close Encounters is a lot of the effects are completely invisible. There are many scenes one wouldn't give a second glance at that are in fact marvels of effects technology. Close Encounters was also somehwat more advanced than Star Wars in terms of the close integration of live action and effects - it was years ahead of its time in that regard. I don't think Star Wars made use of motion control on the live action shoot but Close Encounters did. The first Star Wars mostly cuts from a 100% live action shot to a 100% effects shot and then back again. Close Encounters however, blends things together in way that was remarkably prescient. Close Encounters as far as I know was also the first film to attempt to composite CGI into live action footage but the particular shots were dropped and never completed. The film also boasts a much wider array of different effects techniques than Star Wars. The difference for me is that while ILM's staff were exceptionally talented, Doug Trumbull is a genius.

As for Blade Runner, well, in my opinion nothing in any film in the Star Wars trilogy comes *close* to the gob smacking beauty and atmosphere of those effects shots. It doesn't even compare. Star Wars remained unsurpassed in sheer complexity and volume of shots for many years but artistically its not in the same league. Another thing about Blade Runner that is amazing is how Trumbull was able to achieve some extremely complex multi-pass, multi-element shots in-camera on a single piece of film without needing to resort to optical printing and the associated generation loss.