Skynet is a lot closer to self-awareness than we think. At least, if we go by the evidence presented by Hollywood over the past quarter-century. Ever since the stained-glass knight jumped off the wall in Young Sherlock Holmes in 1985, computer generated characters and imagery have become increasingly sophisticated, realistic, and prolific. Responsible for everything from anthropomorphized desk lamps to toy spacemen, from liquid assassin robots to magic Christmas trains, from Gungans to Gollum, and thousands of visual effects tweaks in between, the binary system might actually be the hardest working actor in show business. What if what it really wants to do … is direct?!!!

And now, Avatar. James Cameron’s epic is being hailed, and rightfully so, as the next giant leap forward in computerized movie-making technology, making huge strides in design, photorealism, and 3-D. But seeing it has only amplified a particular itch I’ve had for a long time about the whole concept of CGI. Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that there isn’t a staggering amount of artistry and hard work that goes into computer animation. I’m talking specifically about the use of CGI to enhance live action. Let me explain.

There’s an unavoidable DVD–like running commentary that comes with me into something like Avatar that mixes live footage with CGI. Yes, the glowing weeds and flying mountains and the Na’vi riding pterodactyls and the spaceships and battles are all spectacular. Pandora is sooo pretty and I want to live there, waah waah. But I can’t escape the thought that most of it was done on a computer. I can’t escape the thought that we have crossed the threshold in movie making to the point where anything you imagine can be put on film, animated by those ubiquitous ones and zeroes. I can’t escape the thought that most of Avatar is a cartoon — a beautiful, technically complex, ambitious, and majestic cartoon, but still a cartoon. Look at the Metal Gear Solid or Final Fantasy video game series. They’ve been producing mind-blowing CGI action cartoons for years, as cutscenes.

I think back to when I first saw the original Star Wars, and how much it blew me away. These mile-long Star Destroyers, droids and creatures had only ever been written about in this scale. How could these things possibly exist? Well, everything from the Millennium Falcon to the Death Star was practical (in film terms this means built in real life, not enhanced by a computer). They were constructed, carved, hammered, welded, and painted. Practical effects have a depth, weight, and texture that CGI has only recently been able to replicate with any effectiveness.

Take a look at John Landis’ An American Werewolf in London, and the infamous transformation of David Naughton into the monster. The scene is so creepy because we can see the skin strrrreeetch his fingers out into the claws. We can almost feel the pain as his face gets elongated ever so slowly into a snout with fangs. It’s the practical nature of the makeup and effects that makes it so visceral. Now, take a look at the CGI in Stephen Sommers’ Van Helsing, or tween bestiality fantasy Twilight: New Moon (or better yet, don’t). Granted, these movies don’t compare well overall, but the point is the transformations, while somewhat creative, don’t hold nearly the same sway over the viewer as the practical effects of American Werewolf.

Now imagine E.T. redone entirely as a CGI character. Lord knows Spielberg and Lucas are computer-happy enough to pull that BS on us. Would it have the same emotional impact? Were Yoda and Jabba the Hut really more effective as CGI? Spoiler alert – no, they weren’t.

Of course, practicality allows for hundreds of laughably bad rubber costumes in any number of Godzilla movies and Z-grade sci-fi. But handled well, there is a noticeable, tangible difference between something that’s real, and something that’s animated. The very nature of CGI allows for effects that go beyond the possibility threshold, and as such are just less interesting.

I think context also plays an important part. In some ways, Robert Zemeckis’ Beowulf, a film told entirely in CGI, is more impressive than Avatar. Yeah, I said it. Since all the creatures and humans are animated and rendered in the same way (successfully avoiding the creepy Uncanny Valley of The Polar Express), they feel more like they’re in the same cohesive universe together. Cameron spent almost 5 years and ridiculous gobs of money to create the technology for Avatar, and I can’t help but think, wouldn’t it have been better to just animate the whole thing? Did he have to create this cinematic Mount Everest for himself, blending the live-action and CGI together? And did he have to write it himself? Ok, yeah, that has nothing to do with CGI, but the question still stands.

Look, I’m sure that the majority of the movie-going public doesn’t give a crap about how a film is made, so long as it entertains them. Only the minority of crazy film geeks like me notice the digital seams in something like Avatar. The ease of use and overall economical common sense of throwing everything on a hard drive probably sounds the death knell for practical effects. But I take comfort in the fact that I’m not alone.

Being Human is this neat little horror TV dramedy from Britain that came out last year about a vampire, a werewolf, and a ghost who share a flat together. For whatever reason, most of their effects were practical. While shooting Iron Man, Jon Favreau made announcements that he was trying to keep as many shots of the Iron Man itself as practical as possible. It’s not much, but I’ll take it.

All I know is while watching Avatar, I actually made a mental note of Sam Worthington’s atrophied legs. I thought to myself, wow, those look pretty real. I recently learned they were rubber prosthetics. Worthington’s legs were secreted away in the back of the wheelchair.

Related posts on 30ninjas.com:

• Audiences Have the Avatar Blues
• China Bans 2-D Avatar
• Fox Admits Avatar Is Their Most Expensive Movie Ever
• Avatar Isn’t All Hype
• Avatar Back in Theaters and Into the Sea
• The Vatican Has Another Problem With Avatar?