I know it's very popular these days to bitch and moan about CG and ignore the advances it has brought to cinematography, however, I'd like to point out a few things in it's defence.
I am a professional Visual Effects artist and have been working in the film industry for 14+ years. I hate the prequels and the look of the CG in it. As I do the look of many CG-laden features coming out for release these days. But I know better than to blame the Visual Effects Industry as a whole for it. Rather, I blame the the suits, the directors and the supervisors for driving the overall look and the dwindling budgets. For the past 10+ years or so, as CGI has grown in popularity with film-makers, studio executives have relentlessly, mercilessly been driving down prices (while star-cast wages have been going up massively), increasing shot-count, expecting better quality in a shorter amount of time with greater flexibility to make changes (despite fixed bids), and no commitments (they won't sign off on anything).
The amount of work that goes into producing a seamless photo-real CG character, let alone an entirely photo-real shot/environment, is staggering and very difficult, despite what popular media and those 'making-of DVD extras' would have you believe. It really is not 'press-of-the-button stuff'. It takes skill, experience, patience, of everybody involved. A hero shot, can take many months (sometimes more than a year) to create, with dozens of artists' input, and hundreds upon hundreds of versions before the final look pleases the clients.
When you've got 1200+ of those photo-real shots to do, with not enough (senior) crew and an unrealistic budget, something's gotta give. And it will be the quality as sadly can be evidenced more often than not these days. The pressures on Visual Effects artists these days is harsh.
Also, Lucas may have had the vision that started it all, but he is a dreadful director and script writer. Choosing to shoot an entire film in blue-screen studios still is a recipe for disaster. Many of my colleagues will tell you they feel our craft is being mis-used in this manner. We strongly feel that if a set can be (partially) built on location, or a character be filmed in situ by a person in a suit or with prosthetics/make-up, then that's what should be done. CG is too often being relied on to "fix" lazy film making. The phrase "We'll fix it in post", is an often heard joke that basically means more unpaid overtime for a gullible "geek behind a computer", to clean up the mess others made.
Thankfully, JJ Abrams has a better track record here than most directors. Alfonso Cuaron and Christopher Nolan even more so. Using CG only when practical effects would be prohibitive and compromise their vision of the shot. And that's how it should be. But try telling that to the executives with their hands on the purse-strings. It is, after all, much easier and cheaper to bully non-unionised VFX-companies/artists around to make changes (to a shot, to a character design, to... anything and everything), over and over again no matter where we are in the production schedule, than it is to re-shoot on location and having to pay cast and stage crew who are unionised. Tragically, changes are often made just because they can... not because it makes for a better story.
That said, I have better hopes for this new trilogy than I do for the woeful prequels. I love the look of the teaser. I just wish they hadn't brought aboard that baffoon Andrew Serkis.
