Did you watch the OT at all? He displays FAR more emotion than the CGI one, from an uncharacteristic but delightful mirth when he's speaking of Yoda in the third person, to a frightening portentousness when informing Luke he "will be" afraid, to a wide-eyed alarm when he's knocked off his perch on Luke's upside-down foot, to a weighty disappointment when Luke walks into the magic tree with weapons in tow, to a gentle wistfulness at how bad Luke will look in 900 years, to a hazy, weakened and struggling state while hanging on to life enough to pass on one final message to Luke. In fact, while watching ROTS, there were a few moments when I said to myself, "Ah, they're improving the CGI--Yoda's making a few more of the expressions he had in the OT than he did in AOTC..."

Yes, I just watched the entire OT 2 weeks ago. People can read a lot of "emotion" into scenes because of voice acting. Try watching puppet Yoda's scenes without sound. He doesn't show a lot of emotion. Or at least he doesn't show it as well as ROTS Yoda can.

I think the biggest CGI problem with the new movie is Artoo. Having him flying in Episode II was bad enough, but between his popping out of the Jedi fighter and his laser light show on the bridge of Grievous' ship, it makes his actions in IV-VI really lame.

They could have at least had him be damaged to explain his later lack of spryness.

I still remember when they would strap a fan on the back of an iguana and call it a dinosaur. There's never been a point in cinema when everything looked perfectly real. Either it was compromised in design to be possible or it looked like a guy in a rubber suit or an obvious miniature or matte painting. As much as I love Ray Harryhausen, I'm the first to admit his stuff never looked real. The Tauntauns had that same staccato animated look. Honestly, I'm just happy they finally got that blue screen matte halo thing fixed. Everything else is gravy. They didn't go from realistic effects to fake looking CGI. They went from fake looking rubber/papier mache effects to fake looking CGI effects. The days of Cecil B. DeMille building a giant set with a cast of thousands is over. CGI has allowed filmmakers to put on screen anything they can imagine at a somewhat reasonable cost. As long as it's not as crappy as, say, the Scorpion King in the Mummy 2 (which looked like a Playstation 1 game), who gives a rat's ass if it is slightly not real? Rubber critters never looked real, either. Most of our eyes are trained to spot it now, thanks to having seen it through its infancy. If you are going to continue to watch fantasy films, then you'll just have to accept that certain effects are going to be done in a computer. Complaining about CGI in a fantasy film is like complaining about exhaust fumes at a NASCAR race. (I agree about its inappropriateness in Horror, though)

Now, if you want to complain about bad composition or utilization (which some of you are, of course), then that's another story. Lucas started this with Jedi (before CGI!)where the screen is so damned busy that you can't tell what's going on. CGI has nothing to do with it. Just bad utilization of it. It's kind of like Homer's webpage with all the dancing babies and assorted gifs ripped off other sites. He also makes films like a glorified Colorforms set, where actors are acting with ping pong balls on sticks rather than fellow actors. He then pastes them together for a scene making it more artificial. CGI is a tool, not a crutch.

I'd agree with you if you weren't completely wrong.

So are you saying you watched the puppet Yoda scenes without audio and you still think puppet Yoda can visually show more emotion than CGI Yoda? I just want to make sure there is no miscommunication here. Or are you just disagreeing without even trying my suggestion?

I don't need to take your suggestion because, again, while watching EPISODE III, I kept thinking, "Huh, they're actually working more of the puppet's expressions into the CGI version". This has nothing to do with vocal performance--hell, Frank Oz does the same voice whether puppet or CGI, so what kind of argument are you making? They've got a long way to go, but at least III's CGI Yoda was a substantial improvement over II's. Now if they could just get the skin tone and eye moisture right (the latter of which we wouldn't have to worry about if George would back the f-in' camera up)...

I've got to say...I'm with bwvanh114 on this one. I don't agree whatsoever that those puppets were more expressive. Honestly, when you think about the technology behind it, it makes sense that CG offers much more possibilities. And what about full body shots and action? Those puppets offer limited mobility and could never, ever do one quarter of the things CG Yoda offered the filmmakers.

Well, to each their own. Though I can't see how one could see that way without some rosy tinted glasses.

Just because CG arguably offers more possibilities does not mean said possibilities were satisfactorily explored.

Agreed, and if you were reading ALL of my prior posts, you would see that I've already addressed that my concerns with the Yoda CGI deal exclusively with facial close-ups.