Start with an inexperienced producer/director who believes he/she totally understands animation and give them a bad idea for a LAFF. Game over then and there. You could rehire the entire technical team from Avatar, purchase them the next generation of CGI technology, and give them an unlimited budget and schedule, and the result will be entirely predictable. The movie will be a putrid failure. Worse, it won't even look good, because a producer/director who does not appreciate or understand animation will opt for character designs like the ones in this column because such a person will value the dazzling technology over the best presentation of the characters. So, do I believe the technology that produced Avatar portends the eventual salvation of LAFFs? No. I do believe that it will produce more detailed and dazzling failures unless two issues are addressed. Let's recap:

First, as the cliché goes, science can be used for good or evil. Same goes for advanced 3D CGI FX. Just because you can adapt the anatomical structure and features of Butthead into a flesh-and-blood amalgam does not mean you should. As was pointed out earlier with The Simpsons Movie (and, I should add, the very successful The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie), one can make a very good and profitable 2D animated film with familiar characters not portrayed by live actors, mo-capped or otherwise. Second, as long as creative control of any animated property in any format is placed in the hands of unqualified and/or inexperienced personnel, there will be tears in executive offices and empty theaters in the communities.

It appears to me, no matter what marvelous innovations appear in the future, up to and including 3-D holography, the best way to address the future of live-action animated films is not to bother making them at all.

Martin "Dr. Toon" Goodman is a longtime student and fan of animation. He lives in Anderson, Indiana.