High-Tech Banality

Regarding “More Realistic, Less Believable?” (by Charles Solomon, July 20):

Charm, subtlety and finesse no longer exist in any form of entertainment, so there’s no reason to expect animation to be any different. Do people still ooh and aah over digital imagery? Do they nudge each other in theaters and tell each other, “Wow, that was done on compyooter”? Later, when asked how they liked the movie, perhaps they’ll complain about the dull story and the shallow characters.

The Warner Bros. cartoons are full of technical errors, but who cares? It’s doubtful that any machine-made graphics will top the hand-drawn wonders of the 61-year-old “Pinocchio.” Even “The Simpsons,” largely a celebration of boorishness, sustains its popularity by remaining character-driven. The worst thing about CGI is that, for all its advancements, it still doesn’t look good enough to justify its astronomical cost. (They still haven’t figured out how to do most textures. Water looks especially bad.)

Actually, that’s the second-worst thing. The first worst is that most moviegoers don’t mind enough about the lack of good stories and/or appealing characters to stay away (the way 1950s audiences rejected 3-D movies when those got dreary).

KEVIN DAWSON

Sunland