I am actually very happy to have read that interview with Spielberg. Alterations are basically up to the creator. (Don't get me wrong. I am totally against any "Nooooooo" debacles or annoying characters.)

Ridley Scott, i.e., can actually make any alterations to Blade Runner. I will even watch them because he has the decency to give the audience all versions (and while some won't understand it, I love the Ford commentary at the beginning.) It's is up to me do decide which version I would like to watch. Once given this choice for Star Wars I think none of us would really be against any alterations for all versions to come. At least, I wouldn't mind. As long as we can go back to a high quality scan of the version we all love.

Back on topic, I would like to say that Spielberg altered E.T. quite heavily (political correctness yeeeeaaaahhhh). Unfortunately, the original version was not available at first. Due to massive feedback the original got released as a double feature if I remember correctly. I still have that altered version on DVD on my shelf. Haven't watched it a single time after I found out that the original version wasn't on it. If Spielberg changed his mind (which rectified the whole situation for me), might it just be possible that one day Lucas will too?

Anyway, CGI is neither bad nor good. It's another tool in the box and for some scenes it is the right tool. While I totally agree that CGI make some things look utterly fake I have to say that it worked in so many movies where old school techniques would have failed. The T-1000 being only one example. Some directors try to substitute a plot with flashy CGI. This has never worked. I guess it will all balance itself. Some stuff will be done with green screen and other stuff the old fashioned way. Except for some of the battle scenes LOTR is the perfect example for a mix of CGI and the old tricks working hand in hand.