It’s a juggernaut. It’s unstoppable. In 32 days it has shot passed 500 million U.S. and eclipsed 1 billion worldwide. It’s laying other film openings to waste. Sherlock’s mystery wasn’t enough. It sent Alvin and his Chipmunks home on a sour note. Just this weekend, in its fifth week of release, it closed the book on Eli. I am of course talking about James Cameron’s otherworldly sweeping sci-fi epic, Avatar. Since it hit theaters on December 18, the record breaking rise of the dazzling film has been nothing short of legendary. After a somewhat modest 75 million dollar opening weekend (by blockbuster standards), glowing reviews and sizzling word of mouth have made Avatar a serious threat to the all-time crown of another Cameron film, Titanic. The critics love it too, evidenced by the film’s triumphs at the Golden Globes, and the considerable Oscar buzz it’s already generating.

I’m part of the cult. I went on opening weekend –actually, at midnight on Thursday- and have since seen the film two more times. I can’t help it; I love blue people and Marines with identity crises I must say though, this last time I strapped on the 3-D specs and took the wild ride to Pandora, something was different. Not that I didn’t like it as much, I did. And when I looked around at the audience I saw that they did too, immensely. As I saw the masses diving into their popcorn and simultaneously diving into the lush 3-D world, a sick thought jumped into my head…

Could the incredible popularity of Avatar be bad for cinema?

Before you bite my head off, let me explain. Avatar is a story that has heart, feeling, and the triumph of the human spirit all plopped onto a revolutionary 3-D background. Part of the genius of the film is no doubt the visuals and how their stunning execution immerses the viewer into a world of beautiful imagination. It’s really something that has never been done before in that you’re watching creatures, fully digital, and you’re emoting with them. They’re essentially expensive cartoons, and you’re supporting their struggle against flesh and blood human beings. Wow. That execution is certainly extraordinary, but I also have to believe that it’s extraordinarily rare as well. So in an increasingly copycat Hollywood, you have to ask yourself if the success of Avatar has the potential to lead us down the slippery slope of CGI madness.

James Cameron was not the first person to try this. And when I say this, I mean setting a story of struggle, triumph and redemption against a mostly CGI backdrop. The first visionary filmmaker to really give that idea a go was George Lucas. In 1999, Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace hit theaters and quickly showed audiences what a 250 million dollar movie looked like. It too was breathtaking in its rendering of splendid aliens worlds. It too, had a high human drama driving it. It was also very, very boring.  Phantom Menace and its subsequent sequels (is a sequel to a prequel a sequel or a prequel?) lacked the execution of Avatar. Each one of the films, while entertaining on some level, seemed disconnected and disjointed in a way that didn’t allow the audience to take part in the fun.  While visually stunning, the narrative actually suffered from Industrial Light and Magic doing all the heavy lifting. In contrast, the first three (or last three, depending on how you look at it) Star Wars films seemed well, realer. Real emotion, real stunts, real chases, real characters.  Actually, you can sum the differences in the two trilogies in two characters. Chewbacca and Jar Jar Binks. Chewy was a lovable creature brought to life by a giant man in a furry costume. Real simple, put on the getup, act, and connect. Jar Jar was probably conceptualized from the ground up. Drawn out, tested, then retested, and digitized. Wouldn’t be surprised if he cost a half million dollars by himself. And he sucked. Totally un-relatable, annoying, almost ridiculous. In short, the million dollar computer creation was no match for a guy in a suit.

It was actually George Lucas himself who first floated the idea of totally digital movies, where actors weren’t even needed. He contended that it was the natural evolution of film to have completely CGI cinema. Well, he sorta tried, and he sorta failed. Avatar is not a totally digital affair, but the lure of its never-seen-before imagery combined with the astounding box office receipts is sure to lead some overzealous studio hack to greenlight every effects orgy that comes across his desk. In my opinion, summer movies are already getting too effects laden. There’s a certain feeling that’s being missed with all this computer stuff going on. Do this real quick, think about the action/adventure films of the last couple years that DON’T include a bunch of CGI. Think about the Bourne films. Think about Taken, The Matrix (btw a camera trick isn’t a bunch of cartoon people, not the same). Now sure, those films are cut from a different cloth then Avatar or The Star Wars prequels, but the fact remains that there was an intensity in them that felt real, authentic and human.

Listen, I love Avatar, I really do, but not as much as True Lies, and not half as much as Terminator 2 or Aliens. When I go to the movies, I want to be exhilarated by the human experience on screen, and I want that experience to be expressed by real human beings. I’ll take Raiders of The Lost Ark over Kingdom of The Chrystal Skull. I’ll take Return of the Jedi over Revenge of the Sith. I’ll take real extras over CGI extras. I want real pyro, real stunts, real fake blood. As a matter of fact I want my “fake” movie experience to be as “real” as possible. Avatar, and its amazing success, just made that a little tougher. For some reason I think a corner has been turned, especially with Lucas saying that a 3-D Star Wars is now a reality. Get ready for it, before long; your best picture winner is going to be a viable candidate for best animated film. And all you aspiring actors might be better suited to find computer programming jobs.