CALL IT CGI run amok. So far this year —? and yes, I realize it's only April 30 — we've had quite a few movies that have been overloaded with computer-generated imagery.
Moviemakers have become so reliant on computer animation for special effects that when "Avatar" was announced as an Oscar nominee, some wags suggested it should have been in the Best Animated Feature category.
It really is difficult to tell the difference between an animated film and many alleged live-action films these days, especially in the fantasy, horror and science fiction genres.
Really. Is "Furry Vengeance" a live-action film or a cartoon?
Back when Walt Disney experimented with live-action characters playing off cartoon characters, it was an easier distinction. If you've ever seen his black-and-white "Alice" comedies, or even "Song of the South" or "Mary Poppins," you know what I mean.
Alice was a real, live little girl who interacted with cartoon animals, dancing, singing and often finding herself in distress from animated perils. These were silent, black-and-white shorts made during the 1920s.
And in "Song of the South," when that bluebird sang on Uncle Remus' shoulder, and in "Mary Poppins," when Mary and Bert are singing and dancing with penguins, the animation is cute but obvious.
Or, switching to another studio, when Tom and Jerry swam with Esther Williams in "Dangerous When Wet," and when Jerry danced with Gene Kelly in "Anchors Aweigh," and there was no attempt to make them look real.
That's even true of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit."
On the other hand, a film like Disney's "Pete's Dragon" might have benefited from a more realistic looking fire-breather, such as those in "How to Train Your Dragon."
These days blurring the line is the goal, I guess. And if you've seen "Clash of the Titans " or "Alice in Wonderland," or earlier this year, "Daybreakers" or "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" or "Legion" or "The Wolf Man" or "Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief," well you get the idea.
Despite being so-called "live-action" movies, were any of them really any less of a cartoon than "How to Train Your Dragon"?
And coming this summer are "Iron Man 2," "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time," "Marmaduke," "The Last Airbender," "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," "Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore," "Piranha 3D" and who knows how many others.
So here's the thing. To these tired old eyes, it appears we might want to reconsider the idea of discarding forever the building of clay models or the use of paintings or even the stop-motion animation of yesteryear (which "Clash of the Titans" uses CGI to emulate, by the way).
Sometimes computer-generated worlds can look quite amazing. Certainly "Avatar" has set the bar high.
But sometimes the CGI is so phony that it's no better than the painting of a sunset in a 1940s Technicolor epic. And sometimes it's worse.
Oddly, CGI can appear more concrete, more realistic in actual animated features. This first occurred to me with the original "Toy Story," with regard to all those toys strewn around on the floor. They were so three-dimensional, so real, I couldn't help but think of all those toys I tripped over when my children were young.
And the thought came again during "How to Train Your Dragon." I was genuinely distracted by the backgrounds, especially those incredible cliffs where the Vikings made their homes. It could be mistaken for location photography.
On the other hand, "Clash of the Titans" often feels like one of those "Alice" cartoons, with human actors simply plopped into animation.
As with every aspect of cinema, CGI needs to work in tandem with the rest of a film's elements. Not as a distraction.
e-mail: hicks@desnews.com